Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Chailey Rural District Council Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

South West Suburban Water Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Clydebank and District Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Nottingham Corporation Act, 1913, relating to the Nottingham Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Headlam; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 113.].

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

EMPLOYMENT, ENFIELD CABLE WORKS, LIMITED.

Mr. GROVES: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens are employed by the Enfield Cable Works, Limited, Enfield, Middlesex; and the duration of their licences and in what capacity they are employed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Permits for the employment
of aliens by the Enfield Cable Works, Limited, have been granted at various dates during the past 18 months. The number at present employed is 12, and their cases come under review during the present year. They are technical experts employed in connection with specialised metal processes.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 23 men from Scotland who, as the result of an arrangement with the Employment Exchange, were engaged at this works, have been dismissed recently, before the introduction of the aliens, because they joined a trade union and because they asked for an increase of pay; and will the hon. Gentleman make some inquiry as to what steps can be taken in the matter?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not know whether the whole of the details which the hon. Member has given are in accordance with the information that I have, but I know that there is a dispute, and I understand that the union is endeavouring to get in touch with the firm.

ENTERTAINERS.

Captain STRICKLAND: 5 and 6.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware of the continued practice of a certain London hotel to engage only alien girl artists; and, in view of the large number of equally efficient English girls now seeking engagements, whether he will endeavour to restrict that practice;
(2) how many foreign entertainment artists have been granted permission to enter this country to take up engagements during the past 12 months; whether he is aware of the large number of equally efficient English girls at present seeking engagements; and whether he will consider the granting of permits only in exceptional cases?

Mr. HUDSON: The number of foreign artists admitted last year for variety hall and cabaret performances was 1,199. This figure covers all kinds of entertainers, including a very small number of foreign girl dancers. I assume that the particular instance which my hon. Friend has in mind is that of a company of American dancers and entertainers for a cabaret performance. My right hon. Friend was satisfied on the merits of that ease that the issue of permits was
justified, but in the event of any further similar applications for cabaret troupes of this kind, each case will have to be considered on its merits.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is more than one case in London in which this practice is being followed? I was not thinking of the particular troupe of American girls to which my hon. Friend has referred, but of another hotel with regard to which I might, perhaps, be permitted to give him information privately. Is he aware that, in the first three months of this year, no fewer than 150 alien turns have been given in this country, which, computing on an ordinary average of four weeks, would represent something like £30,000 paid in salaries to alien artists when we have artists in this country who are quite as capable of doing this work?

Mr. HUDSON: That hardly seems to be a matter for a question, but rather for debate. Obviously, my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary begs the whole question.

Major JESSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other countries, including America, refuse to admit the same proportion of British artists under any conditions?

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that that information is not correct.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the fact that there is a great demand for English artists in other countries, and that, if we begin to do this, they may do the same?

Mr. HUDSON: That is precisely the consideration which my right hon. Friend had in mind in granting these permits.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is my hon. Friend aware that, of 503 variety turns in Germany at the present time, only one is British?

Mr. GROVES: May I ask whether there is an exchange of artists—that is to say, whether, when foreign artists come to this country, an exchange is made by arrangement with the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. HUDSON: Not in individual cases, but there is a rough balance.

FRANK MEYER.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at whose instance he issued and subsequently withdrew instructions for an American student, Frank Meyer, to leave this country in connection with subversive political activities; and if he will consider renewing them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Mr. Meyer was admitted to this country for the purpose of study and had been given permission to prolong his stay until 31st July, 1934, for the purpose of completing some research work on which he was engaged at the London School of Economics. Subsequently I was informed that his connection with the school had been terminated and an intimation was therefore sent to Mr. Meyer that he must make arrangements to leave the country. This instruction has not been withdrawn, but as I am given to understand that the question of the termination of his work at the School of Economics will be reviewed by the governors of the school in the course of two weeks, I have agreed that Mr. Meyer may remain in this country until the end of the month.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: May I bring certain features of this young man's record as an agitator before my right hon. Friend?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: May we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this man is being dealt with under the ordinary regulations, and that there is no individual political significance relating to the action of the Home Office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is under the ordinary regulations. Anybody coming from a foreign country for purposes of study has permission to remain so long as he continues that study, but when the period of study finishes he returns to his country of origin.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman is engaged on research work at the British Museum; and is there any reason why, even if he has ceased his studies at the School of Economics, he should not be allowed to continue his research work in the British Museum?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of all the circumstances. This case is being dealt with in the normal manner

Mr. THORNE: Is it not the case that every Member of this House is an agitator in some form or another?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. WEST: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the Shepherd's Bush Employment Exchange, and the number in receipt of transitional payments?

Mr. HUDSON: At 23rd April, 1934, the numbers of persons on the registers of the Shepherd's Bush Employment Exchange with claims admitted for insurance benefit and transitional payments were 3,736 and 2,437, respectively.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any statistics are available showing the average annual amount of employés' contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund which can be regarded as untouched profit owing to the inability of the contributors to keep up contributions, either through passing the insurable limit of income or owing to their taking up business on their own account?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that there are no statistics of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.

Mr. LAWSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will issue regulations that, where a person has been unemployed and is successful in obtaining work but is unable to accept the work owing to the fact that he has not the means to travel, he will make a grant to such individuals?

Mr. HUDSON: Facilities are available at Employment Exchanges for advancing the cost of travelling to employment at a distance, on certain conditions and subject to repayment of the whole or proportion of the cost. If these provisions do not meet the necessities of the cases the hon. Member has in mind, I shall be glad to consider them if he will send me particulars.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. LAWSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the issuing of regulations to ensure where a person has been off work more than two years, due to an injury or an industrial disease such as miners' nystagmus, that when he has been certified fit for light work by a medical referee, under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, such person shall have a claim for his standard benefit for 156 days, and shall not be subject to the means test as his Department is now doing?

Mr. HUDSON: If I understand the question aright, the point the hon. Member has in mind is already met. The period of two years within which 30 contributions must have been paid in order to satisfy the first statutory condition may be extended to four years in case of sickness. If the hon. Member knows of any case in which this provision appears not to have been observed, I will have inquiries made if he will let me have particulars.

Mr. LAWSON: The question refers to persons on compensation for more than two years.

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, up to four years.

ELECTRICAL TRADES.

Mr. GROVES (for Mr. HICKS): 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, arising out of the statement that there is a lack of men qualified to erect Neon electric signs, he has received a communication from the electrical trades union pointing out that a large number of such men are unemployed, and that this type of labour recruited from the training centres has been chosen on account of its cheapness; whether he has made further inquiries into the facts; and whether it is the settled policy to provide cheap labour through the medium of training centres?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir; I am inquiring into the representations made by the union and will communicate with them and the hon. Member in due course. I may say, however, that I should have referred to the manufacture, not the installation of Neon electric signs. With regard to the last part of the question, the purpose of these centres, as explained on many occasions in this House, is to give unemployed young men from the
depressed industrial areas a course of training in skilled trades which should enable them, not to compete with fully skilled men, but to earn a wage sufficient to maintain them while they add to their skill and experience, and consequently to their earning power.

Mr. GROVES: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that when men are taken from training centres, whatever may be their technical skill, they will comply with the rate of wages prevailing in the trade?

Mr. HUDSON: In general the answer to that question is in the affirmative.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If we are able to show that trainees are displacing skilled men because they are cheaper, what action is the hon. Member prepared to take?

Mr. HUDSON: I should like to see the details of the cases to which the hon. Member refers.

HOURS OF WORK.

Mr. MANDER: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour what information he has with reference to the establishment both in this country and abroad of a 40-hour week with or without reduction of wages?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to recent publications of the International Labour Office on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the whole of the trade unions connected with the shipbuilding and engineering industry are pressing at the moment for this idea of 40 hours per week without reduction of wages? I would like to ask the representative of the Ministry of Labour what party is opposed to it?

GREYHOUND TRACKS, GLASGOW (EMPLOYES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed whole-time and part-time on greyhound tracks in Glasgow?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In view of the fact that this information will be of some importance when the Betting and Lotteries Bill comes before the House, could my hon. Friend obtain it for me later?

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me on the subject.

GAMING LAWS (AMUSEMENT MACHINES).

Mr. GROVES: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, although the Government have introduced a Bill for the clarification of the laws of gaming, many proprietors of amusement arcades and fun fairs in and around the Metropolis are being prosecuted for the use of innocent amusement machines and games which in their operation are in no sense gaming or betting; and will he direct that, until Parliament has decided the position of such machines in the new Bill, those prosecutions are discontinued?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Bill does not deal with automatic gaming machines or with gaming. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that it is not the practice to interfere where the machines or games in amusement arcades and fun fairs are used for amusement only, or where the element of betting or gaming is trivial.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past month there has been a prosecution in Fleet Street, London, where the proprietor of what I call a pin-table used it for the purpose of supplying ordinary cigarettes; and will he consider putting into the Bill some alteration of the Betting Act, 1853, whereby we may be allowed to amuse ourselves without being prosecuted?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PAVEMENT ACCIDENTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 15.
asked the Home Secretary if he will inquire how many accidents have been caused through the sides of lorries overlapping the pavements, whereby injury has been done to
pedestrians; and what action is taken in these cases to prosecute drivers who are guilty of this offence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that no statistics are available of the number of injuries to pedestrians attributed to this cause, but the special returns of fatal road accidents during the year 1933 furnished by the chief officers of Police to the Ministry of Transport show that in that year there were four such fatal accidents in Great Britain. Should an accident of the kind referred to occur, I have no doubt that the police would consider the question of instituting proceedings for careless or dangerous driving.

SPEED LIMIT.

Mr. GLEDHILL: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of localities where speed limits are at present in force?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of Transport to my hon. Friend the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst) on 14th February last, of which I am sending him a copy.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many of the 206 cases in which persons were convicted for dangerous driving in Scotland last year were their driving licences suspended?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Driving licences were suspended in 51 of the 206 cases in which fines not exceeding 10 guineas, and in 21 of the 38 cases in which fines exceeding 10 guineas, were imposed in respect of convictions in Sheriff Courts and the High Court of Justiciary on charges of contravention of Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or on common law charges of dangerous driving. In addition, one licence was suspended in a case where imprisonment was imposed without the option of a fine.

SUNDAY CINEMAS (CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITY).

Sir BASIL PETO: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the
intention of the London County Council to reduce the percentage of the profits from Sunday cinema entertainments that shall be applied to charitable objects; and whether he will consider the amendment of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to provide for a fixed proportion of such profits being applied to charitable objects in future?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have ascertained that no such proposal is before the London County Council or in their contemplation. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

LEGAL PROCESS (SERVICE BY POST).

Mr. JANNER: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the Mansion House Justice Room, on 25th April, over 100 persons were summoned by post and only two appeared; and whether he will take steps to amend the Service of Process (Justices) Act, 1932, to avoid further expense being entailed in future cases?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiry, and am informed that 62 Income Tax summonses for the day in question were served by post. Of the defendants so summoned, only 13 failed to appear or to communicate with the Court, and eight of these paid the collector before the hearing. Service by post failed, therefore, in only five cases. I understand that at this Court service of summonses by post has been a definite success, and I see no need for amending legislation.

Mr. JANNER: 18.
asked the Home Secretary the number of courts of summary jurisdiction in the Metropolitan area which have used or attempted to use the method of service of summonses by post permitted by the Service of Process (Justices) Act, 1932; and in how many cases have such attempts to serve summonses proved unsuccessful?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that this method has been experimentally tried at four of the Metropolitan police courts. The experiment has proved very successful in certain classes of cases, and is accordingly to be extended to other Metropolitan courts in the near future. Statistics are not available.

LEAGUE AGAINST IMPERIALISM.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 19.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a Communist organisation entitled the League Against Imperialism; whether he is aware that, having been expelled from Germany on account of subversive activities, the headquarters of the league are now established in London; and whether he is satisfied that its present activities are within the law?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first two parts of this question is in the affirmative. In reply to the last part, the activities of this reorganisation are kept under observation, but, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the League since its removal to this country in November, 1933, has committed any breach of our law which could be made the subject of a criminal prosecution.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the secretary of this organisation has been decorated by His Majesty; and would he recommend that that decoration should be withdrawn?

Mr. MANDER: In view of the Imperial policy of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no Members of the Government belong to this organisation?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Rutherford), and state the view of His Majesty's Government on such a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman showed no inclination to reply.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: May I ask if it is in order to bring the name of His Majesty into a question of this kind? Is it not outside the Rules of the House?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said that he had this organisation under review. I would like to know the reason why he has this organisation under review?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Undoubtedly, it is my duty, and particularly the duty of those who work with me, to keep organisations of this kind under review.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to know if the Secretary of State can give the House any information that he has
been able to glean anything of a detrimental character to this country as a result of his investigation into this organisation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has all been replied to in the answer given.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman's reply has been anything but clear. May I ask him precisely what he means by keeping a special eye on this kind of organisation? Why does he make distinctions and what are the distinctions that he makes between this and other voluntary political organisations?

Mr. GROVES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Junior Imperial League?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This organisation has a definite Communist connection. It has come to this country, and I have, as is my duty, to keep my eye on such organisations. I have told the House that my observations have not led to my finding anything irregular, and therefore there is no complaint on the part of anyone.

AUCTION SALES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will inquire into the methods adopted by bogus auctioneers who victimise the public, with a view to seeing whether the provisions of the law as it exists at present are sufficient to protect buyers against trading of this type?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir P. Goff) on 12th December last.

Mr. GROVES: If the right hon. Gentleman can find time to provide facilities for members of the force detecting irregularities with regard to the speed limit, could he not find time to go into these bogus auction sales and discover persons who are employed to buy things which they return after the auction?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member reads the answer given on the previous occasion, he will see that the matter is fully covered.

SEASIDE RESORTS (LICENSING HOURS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to regularise the extension of licensing hours at seaside resorts during the summer months, especially in view of the importance of this step to the well-being of such resorts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not in a position at present to make any statement, but this question is receiving the close consideration of the Government, and there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.

Viscountess ASTOR: Was not the candidate at Hammersmith the great hero of extending the hours of drink and did he not get his answer?

Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if we have arbitrarily lengthened the day in respect of the hours that the sun remains above the horizon in the evening, it is only reasonable that we should have the means of altering our habits in the matter of the consumption of drink or in other respects?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE.

PROMOTION.

Colonel GOODMAN: 22.
asked the Home Secretary how many officers have been passed over for promotion to the rank of principal officer at Holloway Prison during the last year to the nearest convenient date?

Sir J. GILMOUR: During the year ended 30th April last the number was seven, of whom five are at Holloway and two elsewhere.

MATRONS.

Colonel GOODMAN: 23.
asked the Home Secretary how many appointments to matronship have been made from candidates outside the prison service during the last two years to the nearest convenient date; the number of applicants for each of the posts from established female officers; and if in future appointments he will take into consideration the experience gained by years of contact with all classes of female prisoners on the part of existing female officers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: During the two years ended 30th April 10 appointments were made to the post of matron in male Borstal institutions, seven of them being filled by persons from outside the prison service and three by prison officers. In the course of making selections for these appointments, 13 applicants from among prison officers were considered. The qualifications and experience of such officers are always taken into account, but service in a women's prison is not necessarily a qualification for the very different work of matron in a Borstal institution for boys and young men.

EX-BORSTAL INMATES.

Mr. POTTER: 24.
asked the Home Secretary the percentage number of Borstal inmates who have passed through the Borstal institutions during the past five years, to the nearest convenient date, and who are reported upon as having been reformed; whether the figure representing the number of ex-Borstal inmates reformed includes any beyond the period of two years from the date of discharge from the Borstal institution; and the approximate number of ex-Borstal inmates undergoing sentences in ordinary prisons to-day or to the nearest convenient date?

Sir J. GILMOUR: During the five years ended 31st December last, 3,407 lads were discharged on licence from Borstal institutions. It has not been possible since I received notice of this question to check their subsequent records in detail, but approximately 60 per cent. of those discharged have not been re-convicted; though many have been at liberty for more than two years. On 1st February, 1934, the number of ex-Borstal inmates undergoing sentences of imprisonment on re-conviction was 614, but no inference as to the success or otherwise of Borstal training can be drawn from this figure. Nearly 11,600 young men have been licensed from Borstal institutions since the system was brought into operation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the system of education more efficient than that in most schools for fitting the boys for after life?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DISTRESSED AREAS (GRANTS).

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will consider the advisability of assisting distressed areas like Glamorgan by increasing the grant for the conveyance of children to school up to 50 per cent.?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): Provision is already made in the Elementary Education Grant Regulations for the payment of additional grant to necessitous areas. The Glamorgan local education authority received in 1932–33 more than £47,000 in respect of this extra grant, and the total grants paid to them amounted to more than 57 per cent. of their expenditure on elementary education. My Noble Friend is not in a position to consider any proposal for the alteration of the existing grant formula which would involve an increased charge on the Exchequer.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. GLEDHILL: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if the cut in teachers' salaries imposed under the Economy Act, 1931, will affect their rate of pension upon retirement within the next few years?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to what extent teachers who reach the retiring age during the operation of the emergency salary reductions imposed in 1931 will be prejudiced in regard to their pension rights?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Generally speaking, pensions of teachers are calculated on the average salary received during the last five years of service, and reductions of salary during that period will, therefore, affect the amount of pension payable according to the extent to which the reduction in salary falls within those years.

Mr. GLEDHILL: In view of the fact that these cuts were not made by arrangement with the Burnham Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to this point so as not to penalise the teachers who retire during the next few years?

Mr. WHITE: Will not the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter so that these people shall not be permanently prejudiced?

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: In view of the fact that the cuts in salary are admittedly temporary, is it fair to make the cut in pension permanent for those who have retired recently? Would it not be better to exempt the pension?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: There is no question of their being penalised, because the Act in question never guaranteed any particular pension to any particular grade of teacher. As regards the position of the teachers generally, though there may be cases of individual hardship, it should be borne in mind that a teacher retiring this year after 40 years' service has contributed only for 12 years to the pension and the State has made the remaining 28 contributions. In fact, the Emmott Committee estimated that the value of the State contribution to the teaching profession as a whole is the equivalent of a free gift of an annuity of £4,500,000 spread over 40 years.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it not the case that the pensions of the police were not allowed to be affected by the temporary cuts? Ought that not to be the rule in this case?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The position of the police is somewhat different. They are pensioned on their salary for the last year of their service only.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that the teachers got their pay raised in 1919?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he possesses any statistics showing the number of tenant-owners of houses in slum-clearance areas who have been deprived both of their home and their living without compensation; and whether he can take steps to ensure sympathetic treatment of these cases?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): No, Sir. The question for consideration in assessing compens-
ation is the condition of the house, so that no distinction can be drawn between tenant owners and other owners of houses in slum-clearance areas. Local authorities have, however, power under Section 41 of the Housing Act, 1930, to pay allowances towards expenses of removal or loss resulting from disturbance of trade or business, and I have already brought this Section to their express notice.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any examples of the amount of compensation which has been paid by local authorities, and is it not so low as to impose a hardship?

Sir H. YOUNG: Of course I can give the hon. Member examples if he will give me an opportunity.

Mr. BOULTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that some authorities are administering the Act much more harshly than others, including Sheffield, and in such a way that very great hardships are being caused not only to small owners but to shop-keepers, who are being compelled to close their business without reasonable compensation or an opportunity of obtaining other business premises? Does he not think it necessary and wise to give local authorities more definite guidance and make it quite clear that the Government would deprecate any action that did not carry out the spirit of the Act?

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the case of notices issued in connection with the demolition of slum-clearance property, the statutory notices to owners, lessees, and others that their property is condemned are sent by registered post; and, if not, what guarantee have the authorities applying for the slum-clearance order that the property owners interested have been properly notified in ample time?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. Notices sent by post are required by the Act to be sent by registered post.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has it not yet dawned upon the Minister that in all these attempts to re-house the people of this country, this Government has made a gigantic failure?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will Mr. Speaker remind the hon. Member of the efforts of the last Government?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is the great Government, the one with the great majority.

STATISTICS.

Mr. BOSSOM: 30.
asked the Minister of Health how many of the 170,000 houses which were built last year by private enterprise have been laid out in accordance with approved town-planning arrangements; and how many have been built in what amounts to ribbon development?

Sir H. YOUNG: The returns made to me do not enable me to distinguish between houses which have and those which have not been laid out under the conditions referred to.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking for returns in such a form as it will be possible to state whether the houses are for sale or to let, and at what rents, in view of the importance of discovering whether private enterprise is meeting the need for the supply of cheaper houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: I must point out that this question has nothing whatever to do with houses to let or for sale, but relates to houses erected under town planning arrangements.

Mr. BOSSOM: Is it not possible to get accurate information on this point so as to prevent ribbon development extending as it is at this time?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am entirely in sympathy with the spirit of my hon. Friend's question. I do not think statistical information of this sort is obtainable, but if my hon. Friend will afford me an opportunity, I will give him such information as I possess.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Town and Country Planning Act is effective?

Mr. BOSSOM: 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many of the 170,000 houses which have been built by private enterprise last year are for rent and how many for sale; and how many of these are capable of being rented at an all-in rent, including rates, of 10s. or less per week, as essential for the use of the lowest-paid workers?

Sir H. YOUNG: Assuming the proportions shown in the returns for the second
six months of the year to hold good, about 40,000 of the 208,000 houses erected by private enterprise without State assistance in the year ended 31st March, 1934, were occupied by persons other than their owners, and about 77,000 were of a reateable value not exceeding £13 (£20 in Greater London).

Mr. WHITE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated number of working-class houses required to be built as on 1st January, 1933, or other convenient date; and the number so far built and proposed to be built?

Sir H. YOUNG: As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, South (Mr. Stourton) on 22nd February last, it is not possible, owing to uncertainties in the basis of an estimate in such matters of standards of accommodation, number of effective families and possible limits of area of residence, to arrive at a trustworthy arithmetical estimate such as the hon. Member desires. With regard to the second part of his question, I would refer him to the answer given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Mitcheson) in which the most recent figures of housing progress were given.

WORKING CLASS ACCOMMODATION (COBHAM, SURREY).

Mr. WILMOT: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the serious slum conditions and the high rentals charged for accommodation in overcrowded working-class properties in the village of Cobham, Surrey, and to the report of the medical officer of health thereon; and if he will institute a public inquiry into the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have received correspondence in relation to this matter, though I am not aware of any report of a medical officer of health in relation to it. I am at present in communication with the urban district council.

INFANT MORTALITY, KENSINGTON.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is satisfied that the steps taken to deal with infant mortality in Kensington are adequate;
(2) what steps are being taken by the Kensington Borough Council to reduce the infant death-rate in North Kensington?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am informed that the subject of infant mortality in Kensington has at all times received careful attention and study by the borough council, and has recently been the subject of a special investigation by them. The council have provided a comprehensive maternity and child welfare service, which has recently been augmented by the appointment of a special whole-time medical officer, and my information is that the service is constantly under review by the borough council. I am satisfied with the nature of these measures.

Mr. WEST: Does not the Minister consider that the mortality rate in Kensington of 120 per 1,000 is a disgrace and a scandal to the biggest borough in London?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make use of such expressions in a supplementary question.

Mr. WEST: Does not the Minister realise that the abnormal death-rate in Kensington of 120 per 1,000 is largely due to the overcrowding slum conditions in Kensington, and does he think that the Kensington Borough Council have done their duty in this respect? If he does, nobody else does.

Sir H. YOUNG: As regards the last part of the supplementary question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given. As regards the remainder of the question, while not accepting the implications of his question regarding this particular borough, undoubtedly the effects of slum conditions upon infant mortality are direct.

Mr. WEST: Does the Minister realise that 55 per cent. of the total deaths in North Kensington were babies of the unemployed?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any statistics showing the number of domestic servants who do actually make use of the services of panel doctors in any given year; and, if so, what is the percentage of those insured servants who do so?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir.

CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. NORTH: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases in which old age pensions have been refused to applicants with 10 or more years' contributions on the grounds that a break has occurred during the period of insurance?

Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that I am not in possession of any statistics on the point raised in the question. I would point out that 10 years have not yet elapsed since pensions contributions first began to be payable.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. WEST: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum paid in interest and sinking fund on the National Debt since 1918?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member will find particulars of interest and sinking fund payments in each of the years up to 31st March, 1933, in the National Debt Return (Command Paper 4415 of 1933). For the year ended 31st March, 1934, the amount paid in interest and new sinking fund was £224,000,000 and the surplus revenue devoted to debt redemption was £31,148,000.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: In order that the hon. Member may draw no false deductions from the figures, will my right hon. Friend send him the other figures which show that the debt services have been provided by those who paid Income Tax, Surtax and Death Duties?

Mr. WEST: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total War Debt in 1919 and in 1934?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the particulars of the National Debt since 1914 given in the National Debt Return (Command Paper 4415 of 1933). The approximate figures for 31st March, 1934, are given in the Financial Statement (House of Commons Paper 67 of 1934). I would, however, remind him that a comparison of nominal totals of the deadweight debt is misleading for several reasons, of which the principal are as follow. First, during
the War a large portion of the debt shown at par was redeemable at a premium. Secondly, the series of Conversion and replacement operations carried out between 1919 and April, 1934, has involved increases in the nominal amount of the debt, although large savings of annual interest have been effected thereby. Thirdly, the nominal debt at 31st March, 1934, includes £350,000,000 borrowed for issue to the Exchange Equalisation Account, and covered by assets. The figures for War Debt cannot be isolated.

PAY CUTS (RESTORATION).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as regards the amount represented by the restoration of half the cuts in remuneration, the average sum received by each of the civil servants benefiting and the average sum received by each of the teachers similarly benefiting?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Precise figures are not available but the average benefit in the case of teachers may be estimated at about the rate of £13 a year and in the case of civil servants at about £3 a year. I should explain that these figures are obtained by dividing the estimated cost of half-restoration of the emergency cut in the Autumn, 1931, by the number of persons concerned.

INCOME TAX (CIVIL SERVANTS).

Mr. WILMOT: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Income Tax for the year 1933–34 payable by civil servants by deduction from their official pay, under Rule 11 of the rules applicable to Schedule E; and whether the whole of such Income Tax had been deducted from official pay by 31st March, 1934, and included in the total revenue for 1933–34 referred to in his Budget statement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Exchequer Receipt in the year to 31st March last from Income Tax Schedule E due on the emoluments of civil servants amounted to about £4,100,000. I cannot give the amount of tax charged for the year, but it may be assumed to be roughly the same as the amount received by the Exchequer.

Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may
I ask him whether the whole of this amount is taken into account for the year which is closed, having regard to the fact that the tax is payable in advance under the rule?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member may have that assurance.

RUBBER SHARES (STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS).

Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the public gambling in rubber shares and in rubber on the English stock exchanges and commodity markets; and will he, so as to encourage genuine business and in order to prevent a repetition of the disasters which resulted from similar gambling in rubber shares and rubber in 1925, seek legislative power to provide that transactions of the kind mentioned above shall only be for cash with order?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A rise in the price of the commodity and, therefore, in the shares of producing companies following the announcement of the recent scheme was not unnatural. I see no reason for the Government to seek power to intervene in the manner suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

GREECE (FOREIGN LOANS).

Mr. ALBERY: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what date His Majesty's Government were notified that Greece would default on the Guaranteed Greek Loan of 1898; and what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to obtain repayment of moneys paid under the British Government guarantee?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: His Majesty's Government were informed in the latter part of March, 1932, that the Greek Government regarded it as impossible for them to continue the full transfers of the service of their foreign loans, including the Guaranteed Loan of 1898. As from 1st April, 1932, the full service of the loan has been paid by the British and French Governments in accordance with their guarantee, each Government bearing half the cost. Under an agreement reached with the bondholders, the Greek Govern-
ment paid and transferred 30 per cent. of the interest on other loans during the year 1932–33, and has repaid to the British and French Governments a corresponding proportion of the service of the Guaranteed Loan for that year, the amount received by His Majesty's Government being £21,992 5s. 4d. The conclusion of a similar arrangement in regard to the years 1933–34 and 1934–35 is at present under discussion with the Greek Government.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Russian Government were not also a party to this guarantee, and whether any arrangement has been made with them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I must have notice of any matter arising out of the answer.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.

Sir B. PETO: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that any industrial assurance company or society can refuse consent to the jurisdiction of the commissioner on a matter in dispute with regard to a policy of industrial assurance, and that in that case the insurers who cannot afford to take the matter to court are unable to obtain redress; and whether he proposes to amend the law so as to give protection in these cases?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Consent to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is not required unless the amount in dispute exceeds £50 or the legality of the policy is questioned or fraud or misrepresentation is alleged. The Departmental Committee on Industrial Assurance recommended that these limitations should be removed and that recommendation will be taken into account in considering the Committee's report.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the apprehension excited in the agricultural community of this country by the proposed treaties with Holland and other countries, he will arrange for a statement of the Government's policy as to which of the articles of agricultural and horticultural produce it is proposed to make
ourselves self-supporting and which to import in part from the Dominions and foreign countries?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that it would not be practicable within the limits of question and answer to deal with the wide issues raised in the latter part of his question, but he can rest assured that in the commercial negotiations to which he refers a continuation of the general development of home agriculture which the Government has already done much to encourage will not be jeopardised.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that a great deal of necessary increase in production is being held up on account of a want of knowledge of what the Government's policy is, and that if the Government will make a statement a great many people can be settled on the land?

The PRIME MINISTER: With the first part of the Supplementary Question I profoundly disagree. As regards the second part the Government have these matters constantly in mind.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: May I ask if it is the purpose of the Government to make this country self-supporting in agricultural products?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have covered that in my answer.

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORT REGULATIONS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the scheme for the voluntary restriction of the imports of condensed milk, milk powder, and cream announced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has now been accepted by the foreign governments concerned; and whether the acceptance has been without any qualification?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The proposals referred to for the regulation of imports of processed milks have been accepted by three of the seven foreign Governments concerned. In two cases acceptance is qualified by reservations of a minor character.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Government of the Netherlands one of them?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. The Governments that have accepted are Belgium, Switzerland and Germany.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What hope is there of the Netherlands accepting, seeing that nearly all this skimmed milk comes from that country?

IRELAND (LAND FRONTIER SMUGGLING).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the percentage by which the personnel of the Customs Department in Northern Ireland has been increased in order to cope with the smuggling of livestock from the Irish Free State?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on 8th May to the questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some information that will reassure the House that the steps taken by the Customs to prevent this smuggling are really effective?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It may have escaped the hon. Member's notice that there are Clauses in the Finance Bill which will considerably strengthen the hands of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE COMPETITION (TEXTILE TRADES).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: 51.
to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the failure of the negotiations with the Japanese Government, what action he intends to take to deal with the growing menace of Japanese competition in the textile trades?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Owing to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in the House on Monday last, I beg leave to withdraw this question.

MANUFACTURES (EXPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage
increase in the volume of the exports of British manufactures in the first three months of the present year, compared with the last corresponding period prior to the passage of the Import Duties Act, that is to say, the first quarter of 1931; and what change took place between the first quarter of 1929 and the first quarter of 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Eliminating the effect of price changes, it is estimated that the volume of domestic exports of articles classified as wholly or mainly manufactured was 8 per cent. greater in the first quarter of 1934 than in the corresponding quarter of 1931, in which period the volume was 39 per cent. below that in the first quarter of 1929.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the decrease in exports, to which Free Traders are always referring, nearly all happened before we introduced tariffs?

APPAREL (IMPORTS FROM POLAND).

Dr. HOWITT: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give information as to the quantity and value of apparel, other than boots and shoes, imported from Poland into the United Kingdom during the first quarter of 1934?

Dr. BURGIN: During the three months ended 31st March, 1934, the total declared value of apparel, other than boots and shoes, imported into this country and consigned from Poland (including Dantzig) was £40,982. I am sending my hon. Friend a statement showing detailed particulars of the quantity and value of these imports.

DANISH AND DUTCH PRODUCE (PRICES).

Sir PERCY HURD: 54 and 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has sought and/or received from the Danish authorities any explanation of the sale in this country of Danish produce at prices below those charged in Denmark; and what steps are being taken to safeguard the interests of British and British Empire producers;
(2) if the attention of the Government of the Netherlands has been called to the effect of the sale in Great Britain of Dutch produce at prices which are in some cases less than half those charged in Holland itself; and what action the
British Government are taking to safeguard British and British Empire interests?

Dr. BURGIN: I do not know to what products my hon. Friend refers, except butter. That question, which he has already raised with me in correspondence, is being examined, and I hope to write to him in a day or two.

Sir P. HURD: Cannot the answer also cover the question of Holland, with whom we are having negotiations at the present time?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly. The answer will cover Holland, but I do not know of any commodities other than butter. My answer will deal with butter coming from Denmark and Holland.

Sir P. HURD: Will the hon. Member answer the last part of the question, and say what steps the Government have taken to safeguard the interests of British producers?

Dr. BURGIN: That is not a matter one can deal with by question and answer, but I think my hon. Friend will find my answer quite satisfactory.

RETAINED FOREIGN IMPORTS.

Mr. HANNON: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the quantity of manufactured goods imported and retained in this country during the first three months of this present year were approximately 20 per cent. higher than the quantity which was imported and retained in the year 1933; and what further measures the Government contemplate for the purpose of diminishing the competition of foreign manufactured goods in the home market?

Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increase to which my hon. Friend refers. I would, however, point out that imports in Class III consist largely of materials on which further manufacturing processes are carried out in this country. For instance, over one-quarter of the whole increase for the three months in question was in non-ferrous metals, including such items as copper, zinc, lead and tin. For the rest, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 8th May to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson).

Mr. HANNON: Notwithstanding the exceptions quoted by my hon. Friend, does not the fact stated in my question reveal a serious state of affairs in regard to our import trade?

Dr. BURGIN: On the contrary, so far from revealing any unsatisfactory state of affairs, it reveals a healthy increase and revival in trade. There is no one-way traffic in trade. We have rising exports and failing unemployment figures. In order to have an increase in total trade we must expect an increase of imports as well as an increase of exports.

Mr. THORNE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible to have a debate on this matter at Question Time.

Mr. THORNE: I do not want to debate. I want to put a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The debate had already begun before the hon. Member rose.

Mr. THORNE: I do not want to debate. I have a very important question to put.

IMPORT DUTIES ACT.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the desirability of setting up an inquiry into the adequacy of the provisions of the Import Duties Act to counteract spasmodic or prolonged dumping of goods into Great Britain; and, if so, with what result?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no reason to think that the existing machinery is not adequate to give all necessary protection to the home market, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the question receives constant attention.

LEVANT FAIR.

Mr. JANNER: 61.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can make any statement with regard to the progress of the Levant Fair at Tel Aviv, Palestine, which opened on 26th April; and whether he has any information with regard to the orders for British goods obtained there?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): According to the preliminary reports which have
reached the Department of Overseas Trade, the British Pavilion is attracting a great deal of notice, and the prospects of satisfactory business are consequently encouraging. It is understood that the attendance on the opening days exceeded anticipation.

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, BRUSSELS.

Mr. JAMES MacANDREW: 62.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the scale upon which leading European Powers are arranging participation at the International Universal Exhibition to be held at Brussels next year, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to participate in this commercial event?

Lieut. Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. Having regard to the importance of this exhibition, both from a commercial and political standpoint, His Majesty's Government have decided to participate. The Belgian Government are being informed of this decision, and that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to erect an official pavilion.

Mr. MacANDREW: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what efforts are being made to interest industrialists in this country in the exhibition, the number of countries that will participate, and when the exhibition is likely to be held?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We are getting into touch with the Federation of British Industries, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and other industrial bodies, for the purpose of interesting industrialists in the exhibition. As to the second part of the supplementary question, 18 countries are participating, including France, Germany and Italy, and the exhibition will be held next, year.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. and gallant Member say which member of the Government will be in charge of the pavilion at the exhibition?

PROSECUTIONS (PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES).

Mr. CAPORN: 58.
asked the Attorney-General whether he will suggest to the Director of Public Prosecutions that, where it is considered desirable for the purpose of saving expense with regard
to formal proof that preliminary inquiries with the object of obtaining admissions of responsibility for alleged commission of acts should be made, such inquiries should be made in writing and not verbally by police officers?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The advisability of the course outlined must depend on the circumstances of each individual case, but I will consider adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend where it is practicable.

ROYAL PARKS (CHAIRS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 59.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will have reduced the rental charge to the lessee of the franchise for chairs in Hyde Park, and other Royal parks, to the pre war figure so as to enable the charge for chairs to be reduced from 2d. to the pre war charge of 1d., as on ordinary days many elderly and infirm people desire to rest for a few minutes and find the post war tariff burdensome; or, alternatively, will he increase the number of the free seats, which are now overcrowded?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of the charge for chairs owned and provided by a contractor has been under consideration from time to time since the War, but, neither in the Royal parks nor in those places controlled by local authorities in London, has it been found possible, for financial reasons, to make a reduction in the charge. Additional free seats have been, and are being, provided as funds are available.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman go to Hyde Park? He will see that the chairs are practically never occupied. Does he not see that it would be a commercial gain to reduce the charge?

TELEGRAMS (SUNDAY CHARGES).

Mr. POTTER: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can give an estimate of the cost of restoration of the shilling telegram on Sunday; and whether he is aware that the Sunday telegram now involves an extra payment of threepence when sent over the telephone in addition to the extra sixpence at present charged?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The estimated cost of restoration of the shilling telegram on Sunday is approximately £5,000 a year. The telephone fee is one penny if the telegram is dictated over a subscriber's rented line, or twopence if it is dictated over a public call office circuit.

Mrs. COPELAND: Is the hon. Member aware that, in spite of the extra charge for telegrams on Sunday, these telegrams can only be sent between the hours of 9 and 11 in the morning, and that there is no guarantee that a telegram sent off by 9.30 on Sunday morning will reach its destination before the Monday?

Sir E BENNETT: The question of the abolition of the surcharge on Sunday telegrams and other points connected with it are under consideration at the present time.

CENTENARY CELEBRATIONS, CANADA (ROYAL AIR FORCE).

Mr. WHITESIDE: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry will consider sending a detachment of the Royal Air Force to Canada in order to participate in the centenary celebrations to be held at Toronto in July?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am glad to state that in response to an invitation from His Majesty's Government in Canada, my Noble Friend has been able to arrange that a flight of four "Fury" aircraft will take part in the celebrations.

Mr. WHITESIDE: I am sure that the decision will arouse the utmost enthusiasm in Canada. Will the Under-Secretary also consider a visit to Melbourne?

Sir P. SASSOON: If the Australian Government ask for it, we shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the machines to be sent are superior to any of those in the United States?

Sir P. SASSOON: That is a matter of opinion.

ARMY MANOEUVRES (WATER SUPPLY).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether the prevailing shortage of water supplies will endanger the holding of Army manoeuvres this year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): It is possible, but not certain, that the shortage of water may necessitate some alterations in the proposed training arrangements. The War Office is keeping in close touch with the local authorities concerned.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: In what part of the country are the manoeuvres to take place?

Mr. COOPER: In Wiltshire.

Mr. LEVY: Has the Financial Secretary called the attention of the Minister of Health to the danger of water shortage holding up the manoeuvres?

INDIA (STRIKE LEADERS, BOMBAY).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for India why the Government of Bombay has caused to be arrested the general secretary of one of the large trade unions concerned in the cotton strike in Bombay; and if he will consider what action can be taken to protect the liberties and the right of combination of the workers who are striving to maintain their standard of living?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Government of Bombay have issued a statement, which was reproduced in the Press in this country, in regard to their action in arresting and detaining certain of the strike leaders in Bombay, one of whom may be the person referred to. This statement contained the fullest justification of the action taken by the Bombay Government in the interest of public safety and peace and made it clear that no restrictions have been placed on the functioning of trades unions. In case this statement has escaped the hon. Member's notice I am sending him a copy.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the function of trade union organisations to make suggestions on behalf of them, and how can that be done if the leaders are arrested, if those who are deputed to put forward their case are clapped into prison?

Mr. BUTLER: I am satisfied with the discretion left to the Bombay Government and with the action they have taken. If the hon. Member will refer to the Press statement I am sending him, he will see that they had full justification for their action.

POLAND AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the lapsing by the effluxion of time of Article 224 of the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye on 10th September, 1934, he will consider ascertaining from His Majesty's diplomatic representatives at Warsaw and Prague the probable future attitude of the Polish and Czechoslovakian Governments towards the matters at present governed by Article 224 of the Treaty?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Article 224 of the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye does not lapse until 16th July, 1935, that is to say 15 years after the coming of the Treaty into force. I am not clear that the inquiries proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend would serve any useful purpose in present circumstances.

GERMANY (CIVIL AVIATION).

Mr. MANDER: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information with regard to the amount spent by German municipal authorities on aerial activities in addition to the air estimates recently published?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the intense activities of local authorities in Germany, is it not desirable to try to get some information on this important subject?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. MAXTON: Will not the ordinary employés of the Secret Service Department be finding this out?

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION).

Mr. MANDER: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any change in the composition of the British delegates to the Disarmament Conference since the statement made on 4th February, 1932, that it consisted of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and Mrs. Corbett Ashby; and when these delegates last met?

Mr. EDEN: As was explained in reply to the hon. Member's question on 8th May, the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva has varied from time to time. The full list of those who have at one time or another since 2nd February, 1932, been appointed as delegates or substitute delegates is as follows:

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Major HILLS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the members of the British Delegation to the International Labour Conference have been selected and, if they have, will he give their names; whether any of the delegates is a woman; and what are the items on the agenda for the conference?

Mr. HUDSON: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the members of the Delegation to the forthcoming International Labour Conference (two of whom are women) and also a summary of the Agenda. If circumstances permit my right hon. Friend or I may be present during part of the proceedings.

Following is the list :

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Eighteenth Session.

United Kingdom Delegation.

Government Delegates:

Mr. F. W. Leggett, C.B. (Ministry of Labour).
Mr. J. F. G. Price, C.B. (Ministry of Labour).

Advisers :
Miss Hilda Martindale, O.B.E. (Treasury).
Dr. J. C. Bridge, F.R.C.S. (Home Office).
Mr. G. R. A. Buckland (Home Office).
Mr. A. W. Garrett (Home Office).
Mr. E. Hackforth, C.B. (Ministry of Health).
Mr. P. Y. Blundun (Ministry of Labour).
1261
Mr. W. L. Buxton, M.B.E. (Ministry of Labour).
Mr. E. H. Richards (Ministry of Labour).

Employers' Delegate:

Sir James Lithgow, Bart.

Substitute Delegate and Adviser :

Mr. J. B. Forbes Watson (Director of the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations).

Advisers:

Mr. W. H. Barritt (Chairman, Allied Association of Bleachers, Dyers, Printers and Finishers).
Brigadier-General A. C. Baylay, D.S.O. (Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation).
Mr. J. S. Boyd (Vice-President, Shipbuilding Employers' Federation).
Major J. Dickinson (Secretary, Sheet and Plate Glass Manufacturers' Association).
Mr. J. A. Gregorson (General Secretary, Iron and Steel Trades Employers' Association).
Mr. H. Kay (Secretary, London Employers' Association, etc.).
Mr. H. S. Kirkaldy (Assistant Secretary, National Confederation of Employers' Associations).
Mr. W. A. Lee, C.B.E. (Secretary, Mining Association).
Mr. G. Marchand (Director, Glass Manufacturers' Federation).

Workers' Delegate:

Mr. Arthur Hayday, J.P.

Advisers:

Mr. E. Edwards (General Secretary, Mine Workers' Federation).
Mr. H. H. Elvin (General Secretary, National Union of Clerks and Administrative Workers).
Mr. A. A. H. Findlay (General Secretary, United Pattern Makers' Association).
Mr. J. Hallsworth (Industrial General Secretary, National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers).
Mr. W. Holmes (General Secretary, National Union of Agricultural Workers).
Mr. J. Rowan, J.P. (General Secretary, Electrical Trades Union).
Mr. J. Stokes, J.P. (Secretary, London Glass Bottle Workers' Trade Society).
Mr. W. E. Townley, J.P. (General President, National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives).
1262
Miss Julia Varley (Transport and General Workers' Union).
Mr. T. Williamson, J.P. (National Union of General and Municipal Workers).

Secretary to the Delegation:

Mr. C. J. G. Dugdale (Ministry of Labour).

AGENDA.

The Agenda contains seven formal items, namely:

The reduction of hours of work; Unemployment Insurance and relief for the unemployed; alternation of shifts in automatic sheet-glass works; maintenance of acquired rights under invalidity, old age and widows 'and orphans' insurance by migrant workers; revision of the Convention on workmen's compensation for occupational diseases; underground employment of women in mines; and revision of the Convention on the employment of women at night. In addition, the Conference will discuss the Annual Report of the Director; the annual reports of Governments under Article 408 of the Treaty; and a report on the organisation and coordination of national and international public works.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, Unemployment Bill, Third Reading (Allotted Day).
Tuesday, Supply, Committee (5th Allotted Day), Department of Mines Vote.
Wednesday, Finance Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday, Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill, Second Reading; Mines (Working Facilities) Bill (Lords), Second Reading.
Friday, Adjournment Motion for the Whitsuntide Recess until Tuesday, 29th May.
On any day if there is time other Orders may be taken. During the week we shall have consider any Amendments to the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage Orders) Bill, which may be received from another place, and any outstanding Motions to approve Import Duties Orders.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to complete the Second Reading Debate on the Finance Bill in one day?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely that is a very short time to allot to the Second Reading of a Measure which is of such importance in the year's work of the House of Commons. The Budget Debates already have been considerably shortened as compared with previous years, and many Members were precluded from offering their views on the Budget statement or the Budget Resolutions. Surely it is not proposed to confine the Second Reading Debate on the Finance Bill to one day?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is the usual procedure unless there is something special in the Finance Bill. I think for this Bill one day is sufficient and that that arrangement will meet the general convenience.

Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, however, that the Finance Bill on this occasion proposes to abolish the Land Tax; that that proposal has not been referred to, either in the Budget statement or in the Budget Resolutions and that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill provides the first opportunity which we shall have of discussing this new departure of policy on the part of the National Government?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not say at the moment.

Mr. MAXTON: Should the Government find, in the course of the Debate on Wednesday, that the Division on the Second Reading cannot be taken at Eleven o'Clock, is it proposed to ask the House to sit late?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it will be necessary. The Government have to arrange the business and it is necessary that we should get this, but I think the programme which I have read out will suit the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is to be obtained on Wednesday, even if
the House has to sit into the early hours of the following morning? May I ask what is the hurry?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hurry is to get the business through in the ordinary way under the ordinary conditions. The business which I have announced, I can assure my hon. Friend, shows no departure from past experience, and I do not think anything new will arise on Wednesday which will compel the House to sit inordinately late.

Mr. TINKER: In the event of ex-Cabinet Ministers and other big speakers taking up the best part of the time on Wednesday, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving another day? One finds on these big occasions that they all turn up and for some reason or another they get preference with the result that up to nine o'clock we have nothing but the big men speaking, and the others have to take their chance afterwards.

Mr. MANDER: Will not the Prime Minister himself require a considerable time in which to explain his surrender to the Conservative party over the Land Taxes?

BILLS REPORTED.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.

BIRMINGHAM UNITED HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].

MAIDSTONE WATERWORKS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to define the seaward boundary of the borough of Lowestoft; to provide for the leasing of part of the pier known as the South Pier by the London and North Eastern Railway Company to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said borough and to empower the said
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses to maintain and manage the premises so leased to them; to confer further powers upon the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses with regard to the supply of electricity and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords] ].

LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Countries.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.





Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM.


Canada
…
…
15.0
16.2
17.4
20.6
24.4


Australia (years ended 30th June)
…
…
39.7
41.9
39.4
40.0
41.3


Union of South Africa
…
…
43.5
46.5
45.1
46.6
51.0


New Zealand
…
…
46.3
47.3
49.2
49.9
50.3


Newfoundland (years ended 30th June)
…
…
21.2
17.3
16.6
17.6
24.9


British India (years ended 31st March)
…
…
44.7
42.8
37.2
35.5
36.8


Irish Free State
…
…
78.1
80.1
80.8
76.0
69.9


EXPORTS TO UNITED KINGDOM.


Canada
…
…
24.5
26.5
28.3
36.1
39.6


Australia (years ended 30th June)
…
…
38.1
53.0
50.7
53.0
54.4


Union of South Africa
…
…
52.9
51.2
49.3
45.7
40.6


New Zealand
…
…
73.7
80.2
88.0
87.8
86.1


Newfoundland (years ended 30th June)
…
…
20.8
22.0
30.2
30.7
39.1


British India (years ended 31st March)
…
…
21.4
21.9
23.8
27.9
28.4


Irish Free State
…
…
92.3
91.4
96.3
96.3
94.1

Notes:

1. The percentages are as published in the official trade returns, or other publications, of the respective countries. In a few cases the particulars for 1933 have been compiled, on the same basis as those for earlier years, from preliminary trade figures.

2. The following are the more important differences in the statistical methods employed in the various countries and in the scope of the figures on which the above percentages have been calculated :

I. Imports are classified according to countries of origin in Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa. The remaining countries record by countries of consignment.
II. The export figures for Canada and the Union of South Africa represent exports of domestic produce only; for the remaining countries, total exports, i.e. inclusive of re-exports, are given. The re-exports trade of these countries is relatively insignificant.
III. A certain amount of bullion is included in the figures for Canada; in the case of Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa (imports only) and Newfoundland, all bullion and coin is included. The figures for the Irish Free State and British India exclude all bullion and coin and those of exports from the Union of South Africa exclude gold bullion and coin.
IV. The figures for the Union of South Africa do not take account of trade with Rhodesia and Territory of South West Africa; figures for British India are based on sea-borne trade only.
V. Imports and exports of Government Stores are excluded in the case of the Union of South Africa and British India.
VI. Imports into Canada from the United Kingdom are valued at par of exchange, and from other countries at rates based on current exchange rates.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

As amended (in Committee and on recommittal), further considered [5th Allotted Day].

CLAUSE 47.—(Payment of expenses out of Unemployment Assistance Fund.)

3.40 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I beg to move, in page 44, line 12, after "incurred," to insert, "by the Department."

This Amendment and the Amendments which follow it are drafting Amendments consequential upon the Amendments made in Committee in the Fifth Schedule which gave the Unemployment Assistance Board the status of a Government Department.

Mr. LAWSON: I understand that these Amendments are down in order to make the Unemployment Assistance Board the organ of the Crown. I do not quite understand in what sense we have to take the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the Public Assistance Board is to be the organ of the Crown. I do not recollect what the discussion was at the time, and there may be nothing in the Amendments, but I think that the House ought to know their full meaning.

3.51 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The House will remember that min the Committee stage an Amendment was moved by my right hon. Friend stating expressly that the members of this board would be exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. Those who heard the discussion will remember that I expressed my view that that would be held to be the position, having regard to the duties imposed on them by the Bill, whether the words were expressly inserted or not. It was agreed in all parts of the Committee that it was desirable that the thing should be dealt with expressly, and the Committee accepted that Amendment. I also stated that as the Bill was originally drafted there were one or two places where the draftsmen had not clearly in their minds the full implication of this position. Of
these three highly technical Amendments to Clause 47, which deals with payments between the Treasury and the Board inter se, I think the first is purely drafting. The second, to leave out the words "belonging to the Crown" and to insert "provided by the Department," is also a drafting Amendment in view of the fact that it is expressly declared that the board is exercising its functions on behalf of the Crown. It is in some sense consequential or related to that question. I hesitate to use the word "consequential," because really that was the position under the Bill before the express words were inserted. The last Amendment is in line 34, to leave out from the beginning to "as," in line 36, and to insert :
There shall in each year be paid to the Treasury out of the fund at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, such sum.
This, again, is purely drafting; the words are more appropriate than the words in the Bill, having regard to the position of the members of the board as officers of the Crown. These Amendments bring the Bill into line with the Amendment that was accepted by the Committee to the Sixth Schedule in regard to the position of the board.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not know whether you, Sir, would allow us to discuss the question of the Unemployment Assistance Board being an organ of the Crown as against a body appointed by Parliament. We have held a very strong view with regard to the position this board holds because, in the first place, their salaries are placed on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and, in the second place, they are outside the purview of Parliament once they get into operation. It seems to me that these Amendments would justify us in raising the question as to whether the members of the board should be representatives of Parliament and perform their functions as such, or whether they should be the direct representatives of the Crown.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is one and the same subject which has been discussed before, and I think it would be waste of time to discuss it all over again.

Mr. LAWSON: Would it not be within the bounds of order to discuss that particular point? It seems to me that these
Amendments simply confirm a principle to which we have objected during the Debates.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments are only a confirmation of what has been done previously, and only make that

clear. I do not think it would be in order to discuss the whole principle of these Amendments.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 264; Noes, 42.

Further Amendments made : In page 44, line 15, leave out "belonging to the Crown," and insert "provided by the Department."

In line 34, leave out from the beginning, to "as," in line 36, and insert :
There shall in each year be paid to the Treasury out of the fund at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, such sum."— [Mr. Hudson.]

CLAUSE 53.—(Rules and Regulations.)

4.21 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 49, line 15, to leave out from "and" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert "approved by Parliament."
We propose that the rules made under the Clause shall not only be laid before Parliament but shall not become operative until Parliament has approved of them. This may appear to be a very
small matter on looking at the Clause itself, but when one traces the application of these rules one finds that important powers are to be given to the Unemployment Assistance Board, who will, in the main, operate under rules drawn up by themselves. They are to be given great powers of decision. They will draw up their own rules of administration. It is true that the Minister will have to be consulted, and that afterwards the rules must he laid before this House, but we feel that this is much too important a power for the House to assign to others without an opportunity of checking and controlling each separate set of rules. Under Clause 36 the Unemployment Assistance Board are given these very important functions :
The functions of the Board shall be the assistance of persons to whom this Part of this Act applies who are in need of work and the promotion of their welfare and, in particular, the making of provision for the improvement and re-establishment of the condition of such persons with a view to their being in all respects fit for entry into or return to regular employment, and the grant and issue to such persons of unemployment allowances (hereinafter referred to as "allowances") in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
When one comes to Clauses under which allowances are to be made we find repeated references to rules which are to be made by the board itself. The first reference in this part of the Bill is in Clause 37 (2), where it says :
rules made under this Part of this Act may provide that a person shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, be deemed to be capable of and available for work notwithstanding such periods of occasional sickness or incapacity as may be specified therein.
The whole of the able-bodied industrial population who are not entitled to standard benefit but are in some way connected with insurance—who are contributors to the national health insurance scheme—are now to be brought within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and there will be various conditions of entitlement, and I think it is well that the attention of the House should be drawn to the Clause and, at a later stage, to the rules. We should realise how much power we are giving to the Unemployment Assistance Board to draw up rules which do not need the confirmation of this House, but only the confirmation of the Minister. There are
rules which are to determine whether people who are in every other way entitled to unemployment benefit or to unemployment assistance who have been ill for a fortnight or a month are to be entitled to further benefit, or whether any short or long period of sickness will disqualify them from benefit under this part of the Measure. The rules will be drawn up by the board, and no attention need be given to them by this House; they will simply be laid before Parliament. We shall be told what the rules are, but have no opportunity of checking or examining them. The next reference to rules is in Clause 39, where it says :
Subject to the provisions of this Act an allowance may be granted thereunder to any person to whom this Part of this Act applies, if he proves in accordance with rules made under this Part of this Act—

(a) that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner and has made application for an allowance in the prescribed manner; and
(b) that he has no work or only such part-time or intermittent work as not to enable him to earn sufficient for his needs; and
(c) that he is in need of an allowance."

All these rules are to be determined not by this House and not by the Minister, but by the Unemployment Assistance Board. The question whether a person is in need of an allowance is to be subject to the rules, without any reference to this House. There is a further reference to the rules in Clause 40 :
In order that an applicant for an allowance may be given an opportunity of becoming fit for entry into or return to regular employment, any such determination may, subject to and in accordance with rules made in that behalf under this Part of this Act, grant an allowance for the maintenance of the applicant at a training course or course of instruction and provide for the issue of payments to him during his training thereat, and also, where the needs of any member of the household of which he is a member have been taken into account in determining the amount of the allowance, provide for the issue of payments to such of those members as may be specified in the determination.
There we find a wide range of possible inquiry into family circumstances, into the relation of an individual applicant to other members of the family, into the question of whether he is likely to need training before he is able to return to employment, possibly after a medical examination. All that is to be made subject to rules over which this House will
have no control. In Sub-section (3) of Clause 40 we find :
Where an applicant for an allowance is dependent on or ordinarily supported by another member of the household who is also an applicant for an allowance, any determination granting an allowance to the first mentioned applicant may, subject to and in accordance with rules made in that behalf under this Part of this Act, determine that the allowance granted to him shall be issued wholly or in part to the second mentioned applicant.
If a person living at home makes an application for unemployment benefit, he will be entitled to benefit, in so far as permitted by the rules drawn up by the Unemployment Assistance Board for granting relief, not to that person himself, but to some second person in his family who may be held to be in the position of guardian or responsible person. The next reference, in Clause 40 (6) is :
Rules may be made under this Part of this Act—
(a) as to the date as from which determinations made under this and the next following Section by officers of the Board and by appeal tribunals shall have effect, and as to the period for which such determinations shall remain in force.
The references follow each other in almost every Clause—rules every time. Hon. Members who represent unemployed workmen will have no voice at all in the matter, and there will be no elected public assistance committees or any such responsible body. The Unemployment Assistance Board, with its advisory committees spread all over the country, will operate according to rules drawn up by the board, confirmed by the Minister and laid before Parliament after they have become operative. Parliament will not be able to say that the rules are too harsh or operate unfairly. That right will not be left to Members of this House, who will have to accept the rules which the Minister will have confirmed, and the rules will be operated in all the cases to which I have referred. Hon. Members will find another very important reference in Clause 44, in these terms:
If any person who has attained the age of eighteen years, being a person to whom this Part of this Act applies, proves, in accordance with rules made under this Part of this Act—
The young person has to furnish his proof in accordance with rules made not by the Minister, or by anybody who is
interested in seeing that the claimant gets his legal rights, but by the Unemployment Assistance Board, which is responsible for the administration of this large scheme of poor relief, and which is detached from Part I of the Act. The board will have the strongest temptation and inducement to practise economy at the expense of the recipients. The board will operate with funds supplied by the Treasury and kept in existence year by year by direct grant of the Treasury itself. The board will probably be amenable from the outset to Treasury pressure, and will have every inducement to cut down the conditions of benefit to the lowest possible level.
In the Clause with which I am now dealing, a young person who has attained the age of 18 years will have to prove under rules
(a) that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner; and
(b) that he has no work.
How can a young man give proof that he has no work except that he has been refused work, and that he has been seeking work? There is the possibility of rules being drawn up which will lead the young person into all kinds of interrogative tests which will require his seeking external support for his application. This may be the not-genuinely-seeking-work provision all over again, and in its worst form. Rules drawn up by the board may not be satisfied by the simple claim for benefit put forward by the young person, and by the time he will be able to satisfy the board, his claim may be very much greater.
There is an infinity of rules. The last one to which I would draw attention is in Clause 52 :
Rules may, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, be made by the Treasury after consultation with the Minister of Health with respect to the superannuation rights of persons who, being officers or servants of local authorities with pensionable local authority service, become officers or servants of the Board.
The board will probably employ a very-large staff, and will need to borrow men who are already engaged by local authorities or who are in the national Civil Service. Such people will have their pensionable rights secured to them only under rules drawn up by the board. If I am wrong in that I will welcome cor-
rection, but that is what I see in the Bill. I would be very happy to be assured that pensionable rights are secure, apart from the rules. Even if such rules are not to be drawn up by the Unemployment Assistance Board, I have nevertheless referred to a sufficient number of other rules to show that there are very important circumstances in which an unemployed person's claim to benefit may stand or fall. His claim to benefit may not stand up to the rules made by this utterly irresponsible body. I say that without offence, because no personal offence is intended in the remarks that I have made. Those persons will be there, and their business will be to see that no money is wasted. They will know exactly how much they have to spend, and they will be doing their work the more successfully. The more economically they discharge their function. The whole tendency from the very outset will be to draw the rules closer and closer, so that nobody will be able to receive public assistance without having undergone very close examination. It is like using a tooth comb to discover which working people are entitled to benefit and which are not. We believe that rules made in those circumstances ought not to be confirmed. Whatever other rules may be drawn up by the Unemployment Assistance Board, all the rules under this part of the Bill should not have full effect and should not be operative until not only has the Minister given his approval but this House has had an opportunity of discussion, perusal and examination of the rules.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: In moving this Amendment, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) was, I think, labouring under a misapprehension as to what the rules are to be. The rules will not be regulations having legislative effect, but will be purely rules of procedure; for example, laying down the type of form that a man has to fill up—that, and nothing more. It is quite impossible at the beginning of a large scheme like this to anticipate all the possible rules that will require to be made, but it is clear that the rules for the day-to-day procedure may require to be altered in a large number of individual cases almost from week to week.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: If they are just ordinary day-to-day rules, have they to be laid before Parliament every day?

Mr. HUDSON: They will be laid upon the Table of the House and will come into operation in the ordinary course, unless objection is taken. They will, of course, be subject to the publication conditions, laid down in the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which provides that a draft of the rules must be published, and must remain open for objection for 40 days. Any public body who consider they have any representation to make will be at liberty to make representations to the board, and the board must consider any representations made to them. It will only be when the whole of that procedure has been gone through, and, in addition, when the Minister has approved them, that the rules will come into operation, except in cases of objection.

Mr. COVE: What action can Parliament take?

Mr. HUDSON: In the 40 days, Parliament can take no action because the rules have not been made. Draft rules will remain open to objection for 40 days, and after objections have been considered and the rules have been either confirmed or amended by the Minister, the rules will be operative, and they will then be laid upon the Table and be open to Prayer.

Mr. COVE: Do I understand that, in the course of the 40 days, the rules may be amended, but that Parliament itself will have its hands tied? I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that interested outside bodies will be able to make representations regarding the amendment of the draft rules and may obtain modifications of them, but Parliament will have no voice in the matter, and will only be faced with the situation after all those representations have been taken into consideration and the verdict of the Minister has been given?

Mr. HUDSON: Surely that is the practical procedure. One of the main objects of this form of procedure is to disembarrass Parliament of unnecessary detail which would otherwise fall upon it. The idea that Parliament should be asked to consider draft rules while they are still in draft, and before the board have considered
any objection, seems to me to be going beyond the bounds of reason. We had a very full discussion on the subject in the Committee stage, and I hope that the House will now be ready to come to a decision on the matter.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: The Amendment strikes me as being very reasonable. The Sub-section states very specifically that the rules are for the purpose of "carrying out this Part of this Act."

Mr. HUDSON: I assume that when hon. Members suggest that the House should give its approval they mean that the House should discuss the rules. If the House is only to give its approval without discussion, the procedure that hon. Members suggest is not very different from that suggested in the Bill.

Mr. MASON: That is a subtle way of getting out of the difficulty. I think the position as the Amendment gives it is very proper, because it embodies the right of Parliament to approve or disapprove certain rules. It is specifically laid down that the rules are for the purpose of "carrying out this part of this Act." Surely the House of Commons is entitled to express approval or disapproval, and to palm us off by saying that the rules will be laid before this House, which is a purely formal procedure, does not give us the right to which we are entitled. It is a very important principle. The rules are drawn up by the Unemployment Assistance Board and are confirmed by the Minister. Not only so, but later on, unless they are approved by the Minister, they are to have no effect. That gives the Minister immense powers, and the only redress that we have is to discuss them, if we have any complaint, on the Minister's salary.

Mr. HUDSON: These rules will lie on the Table of the House, and hon. Members can move a Prayer against them at any time.

Mr. MASON :: There, again, the hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. We know that we may pray, but I compliment the Mover of this Amendment on having moved it, because this is not a party question. It is for the Whole House to consider whether we should part with our rights as a deliberative assembly in either approving or disapproving of rules drawn up in order to
carry out an important Act of Parliament. I hope that many hon. Members will have something to say on this matter, irrespective of where they sit, because this is a matter that concerns the rights of the House of Commons. I have said very little on this Report stage, because the ground has been so well gone over by many other speakers, including several of my colleagues on these benches, but I feel that this is a matter on which all of us should have something to say as to the rights of Parliament.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. COVE: The Parliamentary Secretary skillfully tried to persuade us that the power of Parliament was not being impaired in the least and that Parliament still had full power of control. This particular provision is just one of the details that is fitting into the general structure and is carrying out the main object of the Government in this Bill, and that is to remove from Parliament any power of effective criticism and control over the Unemployment Assistance Board. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "You can have a Prayer," but anyone who has been in this House for some time knows how difficult it is to get enough Members who are prepared to pray. It is always extremely difficult to get sufficient Members to stay behind late at night in order to offer a prayer to the Government, and indeed, with the National Government in power, most of them would feel that it was a most ineffectual kind of offering to make to them, and they would begin by feeling that it was no use praying to the National Government, especially late at night.
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is a most ineffective power that Parliament has over the Government of the day. A Prayer is taken late at night, when Members have been discussing other business and feel a natural desire to go home and not to remain to pray about anything at all. We are all busy men, and there is a danger that even the most obnoxious rules and regulations which may be made may pass by unnoticed. There is no need for the Government themselves to provide time for their discussion. It is the Opposition which will have to be alert all the time and to watch every draft rule that is made, and it is the Opposition that will have to try
to get any provision of time in order to discuss them. This Amendment would make it incumbent upon the Government to find time for these things to be discussed, and that would create a very different situation and would give Parliament a much more effective power over the Government and over the rules that might be made. We ought to make it doubly sure, in a Bill of this kind, that the powers of Parliament are retained.
This is a new procedure with regard to the vast mass of the unemployed, and we cannot be too careful about every detail in protecting their rights. We know what the general intent of the Government is and that the whole Bill has been designed to take the problem of unemployed persons and the poverty of these millions of people out of the hands of Parliament. There are over 1,000,000 now, and with their dependents many more, and the Government are trying to make sure that we shall not be able to discuss these matters as we ought to discuss them, and to make sure that the Government are not brought to that Box to answer for their deeds or those of their servants. They are taking the board clean out of our control. We shall jealously watch every provision and see how it works out, and I am very glad that this Amendment has been moved. I should have imagined that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) would support this Amendment. I understand that he was a Liberal, but he may have forgotten his democratic days.

Mr. MAGNAY: I will speak for myself.

Mr. COVE: I should have thought he would have got up and said, with us, that rules with regard to the interests of the unemployed and everything affecting them should be discussed in this House. I should have thought he would have said that the initiative ought not to lie with the rank and file in bringing such matters on to the Floor of the House. He is supporting something which prevents the initiative and responsibility being exercised by the Government, and he leaves it to us to get some discussion, late at night, when the House is at its most ineffective. I shall wel-
come the opportunity of going into the Lobby against such a provision as this.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: It has taken me all my time to sit still and hear the many speeches made by members of the Opposition, who, if I understand their political philosophy aright, are Socialists and, therefore, believe in State control. How, in the name of reason and logic, they can oppose State control is beyond me, and this tender regard for Parliament, coming from those benches, makes me wonder if they have not taken into consultation their real leader, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who has made it plain that if they come into power, they will have such ruthless instruments as Orders in Council, which will make it unnecessary for Parliament to sit at all. As a democrat of the democrats, I rejoice with great rejoicing that they have seen the light of reason at last and are standing up for the rights of democracy. I welcome that very much.
I do not see any difficulty in this matter at all. There are to be 40 days and 40 nights. If I remember my Biblical history aright, the deluge was for 40 days and for 40 nights, and I imagine that, if there were any harsh infringement of the rights of the working men whom we represent, in 40 days and 40 nights there would be another deluge in this House, of questions. At any rate, I think I would be there when it was done to stand up for the rights of my constituents and the working class whom I represent, and proudly represent in this House. I suggest that this is all a sham fight, and I suggest that as a democrat who believes in my very bones that the best thing that can happen to this country is that we should have, as we have to-day, a free Parliament, because that is what democracy means to me. I repeat that the leaders of the Opposition have pledged themselves on major Measures to bring into practice Orders in Council to do what they like, without the consent of Parliament.

Mr. COVE: Will the hon. Member tell us exactly what leaders and where they have said that?

Mr. MAGNAY: It is in the knowledge of every intelligent Member of this
House and it is common knowledge in the public Press, and if I had known that such an interjection would have been made, I would have brought with me the pamphlet in which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol said that in so many words, and the reply of the Foreign Secretary to that pamphlet. I, as a democrat, rejoice that hon. Members opposite have seen the light of reason at last and that they are coming back to their "first love," and they will do well to "repent, and do the first works." There is not the slightest doubt that this House, when the rules and regulations are tabled here for 40 days, will have ample time to see how they affect the unemployed and to deal with them. When all is said and done, the great force in this country is public opinion, and if there were any harshness in the regulations, there would be such a power of public opinion aroused that Members of this House would not be capable, if they had been sound asleep before, of refusing to bow before it. I suggest, with all respect to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), that this Amendment is just a sham fight and that there is no reality in it, and I support the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary in his remarks on this question.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) seems to be very indignant that this Amendment has been moved. I have noticed in the course of similar debates that supporters of the Government have repeatedly referred to the writings of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and have called attention to the fact that in some of those writings he has suggested that we should proceed by Orders in Council and things of that description. During the course of these Debates we have given hon. Members opposite ample opportunities to go into the Lobby and support continued Parliamentary control over these very important matters, but in spite of that they have not availed themselves of those opportunities. Obviously, therefore, their criticism of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol is unreal. It is sham criticism, and they do not really object to anything he has written.

Mr. PIKE: Rubbish!

Mr. BROWN: They have had opportunities nearly every day to go into the Lobby in support of Parliamentary control, and they have refrained from doing it. It cannot be gainsaid that we on these benches have done everything in these Debates to maintain Parliamentary control over an important sphere of our social life. In spite of all our efforts, supporters of the Government who criticise the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, not only here but on public platforms outside, have repeatedly failed to avail themselves of the opportunity of maintaining Parliamentary control. Obviously the whole criticism of the hon. and learned Member is a sham criticism and hypocrisy. Hon. Members do not believe in their own criticism or they would follow us into the Lobby. I see the Minister of Labour is present and I am very glad. He has repeatedly told the House, as he did last night with a good deal of feeling, that this system of State relief—I am using the word he has repeatedly used himself—which he is setting up under Part II of the Bill will be the best thing of the kind we have ever had in this country, better than transitional payment, uncovenanted benefit and all that has been in vogue in the last two and a-half years. It will be more inclusive, and iron out the anomalies that have existed, and he takes great pride in having invented this new system of machinery. After all what we are discussing at this moment is purely machinery. I do not say at this stage whether it is good or bad. In my view it will not be as good as he thinks, but we do not want to have new machinery to deal with this problem. We want a new spirit, a new attitude of mind and outlook.
All that, however, is by the way. The Minister has set up a piece of new-machinery, and here, in one respect, we are seeking to alter the character of the machinery. We want to put in these words, "approved by Parliament" in connection with the rules. We on these benches stand for the rights and authority of Parliament, and I say again that I shall be glad if Members on the other side are going to support us in the Lobby. I am afraid we shall find them in the other Lobby, but we feel that, as far as possible, this new machinery is a great experiment. I do not think the Minister would make any other claim at this stage
than that he hopes it will work out all right. I think he is actuated by the best motives, but he has been misled by his advisers. [Interruption.] I know what the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said, but I am not going into the question of Cabinet secrets. The Minister has fallen into a trap and I think he imagines that this machinery will be a good thing and operate better than anything we have had before. We do not think so, and consequently we want as far as possible to maintain Parliamentary control over the new body and the various things it will do.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) criticising supporters of the Government for having let slide opportunities of retaining Parliamentary control. There is no doubt that supporters of this Government have been excessively lax in allowing opportunity after opportunity to slip by and allowing bureaucratic as opposed to Parliamentary control to come into force in this country. I can remember an occasion when a Motion was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the Government supporters were followed by Members of the Labour party into the Lobby against a proposal to keep the control of the courts over orders made by a bureaucratic body. Clearly then it is not for the party above the Gangway to criticise the Government on that score. The only people who can do so with real passionate sincerity are surely the hon. Members on these benches. I should like to challenge anybody to point to a single case when the Members on these benches have not solidly upheld control by the courts and by this House.
It will be said that the Orders we are now discussing will only affect procedure. There are at least two Members on the Front Benches who know that procedural actions can be exceedingly important to the litigant and can be effective in depriving him of his rights. We have heard a speech from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) which shows quite clearly that in spirit he is with this Amendment, but at the same time he seems to be under a delusion that the House will have control during 40 days
and 40 nights as he rather picturesquely said. But the control of the House will be illusory. We can pray until we are blue in the face and we shall have no effect, because, as I understand the Rules of Procedure, if a private Member prays the Government to do anything the prayer can only be taken after 11 o'clock if the Government gives time, if it is made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament. I would ask the Government to meet this point because it is serious. If the Government does not choose to give time Members are effectively barred from any criticism whatever of the Orders placed on the Table. Lying on the Table means nothing unless we have time for discussion, and we cannot have time unless the Government gives it. The Government has, therefore, power to stop any criticism effective or otherwise.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I want to support this Amendment because on the Second Reading of this Bill I drew the attention of the House to what I thought was the worst possible feature in it. I was more afraid of the way in which it would ultimately be administered than of the changes which the Bill itself brought about. The success or otherwise of this Bill will depend almost entirely on the spirit of its administration. It is all very well for the smiling Parliamentary Secretary to get up and make an explanation and to smile and smile like the villain of the piece, but no one knows better than himself that the effect of this procedure is going to be to take out of the hands of this House any effective control of the administration of the Act.
What do 40 days and 40 nights mean? Nothing at all. Let me remind hon. Members of the effects of Orders which lie on the Table. If the Home Office tomorrow decided to issue an Order making Regulations affecting, let us say, factory administration, of which I know something, the draft Order would be laid on the Table and Parliament could do nothing whatever regarding it. The draft Order is sent round to the parties interested for their observations. They make certain comments. There may even be a meeting with the officials of the Home Office. After all that has taken place, the ultimate power lies in the hands of the Minister himself, who just does what he proposed to do and takes
notice, it may be, by saying : "Everything you have said will be carefully considered and all the relevant facts will be taken into consideration." Then he proceeds to carry out the Order precisely as he had intended, and so far as Parliament is concerned there is no control whatever.
All of us know the difficulties of this unemployment question, and I think there could be nothing more fatal to the prestige of Members of this House than for it to go forward that they are pleased at a chance to wash their hands of the responsibility of administering this Act. If these rules, which are to govern the lives of 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 people, with their wives and dependants, are to be made by this irresponsible body, the Unemployment Assistance Board, in the first place, surely it is not asking too much that this House should have some say as to what those rules should be. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a difficult job, that the Unemployment Assistance Board would ultimately evolve its methods of procedure, but it might be altered day by day.
Surely some of the Members of this House on both sides who have had practical experience in the administration of unemployment benefit and know something about the administration of the Acts in the past, have a knowledge and experience as to the effect of the rules which might be taken into consideration. In spite of all that may be said about the desire of Members on this side of the House to take certain things out of the control of Parliament, the fact remains that, if we stand for State control, we mean by it control by Parliament. Our reading of democracy is that this House is the ultimate expression of the will of the people of this nation, and in so much as we back up State control we mean the control of this House, of representatives of the people.
It seems to me that we are losing a most vital thing in our Constitution in allowing an outside body to fix rules and regulations over which we shall have no control whatever. It is because I believe that this House should be very chary indeed in parting with its powers that I believe this Amendment is absolutely necessary. It is all very well to say that we can make a petition against rules and
regulations and come along after eleven o'clock and do certain things, but it all depends on the will of the Government as to whether we have an opportunity of doing it, and even if we do, what effective action can we take We cannot move Amendments; we have either to accept the rules or reject them as they stand; and for the Minister to say that the House is safeguarded by this method of procedure seems to be unreasonable.
It gives colour to the opinion of many of us that all that the Government are concerned about is to take all the difficulties of transitional benefit, and all the troubles that arise in connection with it, away from the Floor of this House, to wash their hands of the matter and give it to some body outside, and then to declare that unfortunately they cannot help it, because the matter is now out of the hands of Parliament altogether. I feel that the unemployed people in the country, constituents of ours, will want to know why their Members cannot voice on the Floor of the House their grievances with respect to the administration of the Act.
I have never looked upon this matter as the prerogative of one particular party, but have rather considered that it was the right and privilege of every Member of the House to see to it that we do not part with that control which, after all, is an essential part of the duties of the House. I am afraid that the Minister of Labour is not quite as simple as is suggested. He knows very well what he is doing, and, although we on this side of the House have always paid tribute to his honesty of purpose, and have always believed that he occupies a very difficult position in dealing with the question of unemployment, we feel that, as this is our last chance in the proceedings on the Bill to put our point of view as regards the necessity for our keeping control, in some respect at any rate, of the methods of procedure under the Bill, we are justified this afternoon in making this last protest.
It is not reasonable or fair to say that so far as we are concerned this is a sham fight. It is not a sham fight; it is a sincere expression of opinion, and, we believe, an expression of opinion which will find support throughout the country. We believe that our point of view, that this matter should not be taken out of the control of the House of Commons,
will find support, not only among our own supporters, but among men and women of good will throughout the country; and it is because we believe sincerely that on this point we are expressing the best traditions of the House in doing all that we possibly can to preserve the control of Parliament, that we are supporting this Amendment.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I think the House really should regard this Amendment seriously. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has replied that the rules will be laid upon the Table, and we can pray after that. If any Members of the House have had experience of prayers and of praying in this House, they are the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) and for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). If anybody knows anything at all about it, they do, and as a matter of fact experience shows that it is perfectly futile and means nothing at all. I wish the House could have been full when we were discussing this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) introduced the Amendment in a speech full of thought, in which he covered meticulously the Clauses which make arrangements for rules on various subjects, and it is very important, particularly after last night's Debate, that the House should give serious attention to this question of rules being approved by the House.
What was the position of the right hon. Gentleman last night? The House has been seriously disturbed about the operation of the means test, and the right hon. Gentleman has not been satisfied with it himself. Indeed, he has given us a regulation including certain words upon which he stakes almost his reputation as regards the successful operation of Part II of the Bill. The one thing that hon. Members said all through the Debate was that they hoped the right hon. Gentleman's rules were going to be so watertight and so clear that there could be no mistake about the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is going to see that these words in Clause 39 are not only given effect to, but that they are so much alive in actual fact that those for whom the rules are to operate, and for whom the board exists, are going to get a fair deal—a
fairer deal than the present system has given. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to make rules, and the Parliamentary Secretary says that of course those rules must have a chance of being tested. The rules are to be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, he is to make any amendments that he wants to propose, they are then to be sent back to the board, the right hon. Gentleman will then confirm them, and then they will come to this House. But in the case of regulations they are not only thrown back from the board to the Minister until he is satisfied that they are right, but he lays them before the House, and they are to be approved by Parliament. The rules, upon which the success of the operation of Clause 39 particularly rests—

Mr. SPENS: May I point out that in Sub-section (3) of Clause 39, which deals with the means test, it is "regulations" all through? They are not rules at all.

Mr. LAWSON: That is far too general, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that rules are going to be made, or, at least, I hope they are. I think he will have sufficient regard for the dignity of the House to give a thought that it was going through without any real discussion, and, therefore, I do not think he really went into the merits of the case. No one has more regard for the Parliamentary Secretary than I have, but I do not think he expected that so much serious consideration would be given to this matter. In Clause 37 (Application of Part II of Act), Sub-section (2) says that :
rules made under this part of the Act may provide that a person shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, be deemed to be capable of and available for work.…
That is really very important indeed. Then, in Clause 39, rules are referred to dealing with the allowances and training. It says :
Subject to the provisions of this Act, an allowance may be granted thereunder to any person to whom this part of the Act applies if he proves, in accordance with rules made under this part of this Act—

(a) that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner and has made application for an allowance in the prescribed manner; and
1301
(b) that he has no work or only such part-time or intermittent work as not to enable him to earn sufficient for his needs, and …"

Then there are rules to be made giving power to permit training to be given to persons over 18 who are not in need. There is a number of Clauses and Subsections dealing with matters of that kind. I do not think that hon. Members will have the guarantee which they desire that the new Clause 39 will have quite the effect they want unless these rules are considered, and I think that, as hon. Members were so keen last night, particularly in connection with the operation of the test, the allowances, and all the rest of it, that wrongs which undoubtedly exist should be righted, if ever there was a time for giving effect to what they wanted last night, it will be when these rules are considered in the House. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, or at any rate the Solicitor-General, is going to meet the Debate, and to consider seriously the points which have been put this afternoon. The subject is a very important and serious one if the working of the Act is to be successful.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I only rise to make two points. The first one I hope the party opposite will forgive my making this afternoon. I think it was only two nights ago that I addressed the House on the subject of the procedure under Clause 18—which is exactly the procedure that the hon. Member for Gower and those who are supporting him now desire to have put in by this Amendment—and I was severely rated by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and was told that it was a perfectly useless procedure for giving Parliament any control of any sort or kind. All I can say is that, if this is an instance of consistency on the part of either the Labour party or the Liberal party, I hope that the House and the country will look for a better example of it in days to come.
It has not been pointed out to the House that under this part of the Act there is a double machinery—machinery by rules and machinery by regulations. The machinery by regulations is exactly the machinery which hon. Members want
the rules machinery to be, that is to say, the regulations are to be brought in in draft, they are to be brought before the House, before they are altered there are to be explanations of the reasons for their alteration, and they are to be approved by both Houses of Parliament—very similar machinery to that under Section 18. Inasmuch as both parties opposite are in favour of the Amendment, presumably they are satisfied with the machinery under Section 18 and with the regulations under this. The criticism of this matter goes far beyond the Rules under this Act. As far as I could gather, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) is against any sort of procedure for making rules unless on every occasion they are brought before Parliament and affirmatively approved by both Houses. The congestion in this House and the other place would be ten times worse than it is to-day. We should be spending our whole time affirmatively approving rules made under this and the 101 other Acts under which rules have to be made and laid on the Table.
The only real question on the Amendment is whether there are any matters in this Section of the Act which the Bill provides should be made by rule which some people think ought to have been made by regulation. One would have expected to find, not the Amendments on the Paper, especially after the criticism of two nights ago, but Amendments substituting "regulations" here and there for the word "rules" and, if we had those Amendments, we might have had some useful discussions on the matter. But to suggest that on a Measure such as this we are not to adopt this procedure, which has been adopted in hundreds of other Acts of Parliament, is ill-advised and misconceived.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not agree with a good deal of the tribute that is paid to the Minister of Labour. I do to a certain extent but, when they begin to say he is a superman, I demur. Last night he dared to challenge no less a personage than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who is one of the most powerful men in the country. There are no two ways about that. That was evidence to me, if I required it, that he is about as able a man, and knows his way about as well as
anyone else. He is not so simple. But it is a very serious thing that we are considering, and that is why we take such a serious view of this board. When we bring something forward and expect the House to take an interest in it, we find that there never was such a dead House of Commons as there is at present. In the midst of that the Government decide further to abrogate the power of Parliament, to take business away and to curtail further our power of criticising the Government. If there is anything that stands out pre-eminently in the British Constitution, it is the fact that the Government are not conducted by any party and the laws of the land are not made by any party, but are made on the Floor of the House of Commons. The outstanding distinction of this organisation that we call the British House of Commons is supposed to be that every section, every group if you like—because we are breaking up into groups—is rendering its quota of criticism, and out of that come the laws that are put on the Statute Book. If anyone has a distinct point of view to put, he will be permitted to put it. Here we are surrendering this outstanding characteristic. We are doing away with the power of the House of Commons, and giving it to a board.
We have discussed this very seriously, and have decided to have no part or parcel with this board, and will have nothing to do with nominating any member of it because we believe, as a party tapping every section of the working class, that the working class detests the Bill. We believe it is one of the worst Bills that have come before Parliament in our time. The Parliamentary Secretary was not very ready to-day in replying to a question regarding the 40-hour week. I put it on behalf of a quarter of a million organised engineers, and the hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to pay any attention. It always pays to be courteous. The hon. Gentleman may be smart, but he makes mistakes sometimes, and that is one that he made with me to-day. I believe that the only opportunity we are going to have of bringing this board to book—it will have the fate of millions of people in its control—is by a Prayer after Eleven o'Clock. I asked whether we should be able to get at the matter by question and answer, and it was pointed out that we could.
It is placing the board out of our reach and out of the Minister's reach. We talk about Hitler and how he created such an atmosphere at the last election that there was no other way out for the Germans but to vote for him. Here we are doing the same thing. We are abrogating our power. It is the highest honour that can be conferred on a Briton to be made a Member of Parliament, and it is not for the hon. Gentleman to give away that honour. It is for him to guard it. I remember when there was no Minister of Labour. I remember when there was no unemployment as we know it to-day. There are circumstances that demand more careful handling than ever before instead of relegating our power to an outside body. I can remember when the unemployed, on the average, were those who were not just fit or were old or infirm, but a new set of circumstances has arisen and now the unemployed are quite different
See yonder poor o'erlabour'd wight,
So abject, mean and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth,
To give him leave to toil;
And see his lordly fellow-worm
The poor petition spurn,
Unmindful the a weeping wife
And helpless offspring mourn.
That is not the case to-day. It is not the poor abject individual, it is the youth for whom they are making provision here. Here the Minister of Labour is going to deal with hundreds of thousands of the finest of our youths. There is no work for them, and neither he nor employers of labour nor the Government can find work for them. The job of the Minister of Labour has been one of the most unenviable and uncomfortable in this House. We set about the Minister of Labour, and naturally blamed the Ministry of Labour because they were not finding work, until we received information that it was not the job of the Minister of Labour to find work but of the President of the Board of Trade. It was simply the job of the Minister of Labour to administer the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Minister of Labour, the nice, mild, quiet Minister of Labour, to whom everyone is paying tribute, has scientifically designed this Measure in order to get rid of criticisms from these benches. The Government are putting the duty upon this board, over whose conduct we shall have no power other than in the manner I have stated. What
is the function of the board? Take Clause 36.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I hardly think that the Amendment can be said to admit a discussion of Clause 36; it applies only to this particular Clause.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am following the exact line which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) took, because he quoted from certain Clauses, and I think I have just as good a right to make those references as the hon. Member, although he happens to be a Front Bencher.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not within the limits of this Amendment to quote the particular rules to which the Amendment refers? My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) pointed out that rules have to be made under several headings, and the Amendment deals with the approval by Parliament of those rules

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the words I used just now were not very carefully chosen. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was not out of order in making reference to previous Clauses, and there are certain references to those Clauses which may properly be made. Possibly I was a little hasty in drawing conclusions as to what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was going to say.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I accept your apology. You are not the only one who makes mistakes in this House. I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to Clause 44. On the Second Reading of the Bill I made a speech relating to this Clause. I view with alarm the power which is to be given to this board. I know the frame of mind and the outlook, not only of the Minister, but of the Department before they framed Clause 44. There has not been a Minister of Labour or a Parliamentary Secretary since I came to this House over 12 years ago with whom I have not had both public and private dealings on this very matter—the employing of the youth. I hold very strong opinions on this question. The Clause says :
If any person who has attained the age of eighteen years, being a person to whom this Part of this Act applies, proves,
in accordance with rules made under this Part of this Act—

(a) that he is registered for employment in the prescribed manner; and
(b) that he has no work."
They will have the power to send those youths to training centres. This is the most scientific machine for conscription yet invented. For what are these youths going to be trained? I put a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to-day with regard to trainees being brought from those training centres and taken into engineering shops. I am going to give him cases, as he has asked for them. They are displacing skilled men. They are getting 30s. a week, and displacing men receiving £3 a week. That is what is being done.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member has by this time realised that this hardly has to do with the question of whether those Rules have to be approved by Parliament or not.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree, but we are discussing the matter with a view to doing what we possibly can to modify those Rules, and I am trying to put before the House what is actually in operation. So we need not expect anything better from the present dispensation either from the Minister or the Department. This is not a case where we have a change of heart or a change of outlook. They are the same permanent officials. How Labour Ministers could have been in favour of training centres is beyond me. I know that there are individuals who claim to be Socialists, and that the present Prime Minister created a Department of Unemployment, but they had to do away with that Department because it could not find employment. The Secretary of State for the Dominions at that time said that there were 1,250,000 men and women in this country for whom neither the Government nor employers of labour could find work. The number has nearly been doubled since then.
Therefore, the Minister should have inserted here that which he has the power to insert, and should have instructed the Board as to the lines along which they should go, instead of condemning youths over 18 years of age to training centres such as we have to-day. The young men and women of the working classes have now the opportunity of enjoying educational facilities which formerly were the preserves of the rich. The Ministry could
have provided for sending these young persons to universities in order to enable them to get the best education that this country can give, instead of adopting the present course. The Minister knows that that is the line that we would take, but he has relegated the business to this board, which is to be all powerful. Therefore I hope that this House, for the sake of itself and the sake of our Parliamentary system, will not throw that system to the winds as they appear to be doing.
The present Government is so powerful that we are overweighted. Every time that Members on these benches rise, the Government have so many supporters that they outweigh us. We have not the numbers to support us when we happen to get up against hon. Members on the other side, or if we happen to collide with the Chair. I have noticed many times that the House is not as kindly disposed to hon. Members on these benches as they were when our numbers were greater. In stead of making allowances and encouraging the discussion of business on the Floor of the House of Commons, the Government are sending it away to a Committee, to a board, so that Parliamentary discussion will be stifled. Then they talk about the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), because he has said that we would bring in Orders-in-Council It has been said that he has threatened a sort of dictator ship and that he was going to do away with Parliamentary procedure, on the ground that it would take too long to get Bills through Parliament. Tory Members and prominent Members of the Tory party have made great play with that statement, not only in the House but in the country. I do not apologise for anything that the hon. and learned Member said. I support him all the way that he goes on this matter. It is not so much because the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol has said these things that the Tories are objecting, but it is because it is Labour that is going to do it. If it was the Tory party that was going to put these Orders-in-Council through—

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Amendment before the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Our Amendment protests against the appointment of the
board because it means abrogating the power of the House of Commons. We have put down our Amendment in the usual fashion and I have no doubt that you have seen it. We put it down in order to raise a discussion. The whole proceeding of Parliament is involved.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was going a great deal further than I can allow.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thank you for your ruling. We fear this idea of the criticism of the Government by the Opposition being done away with. It is one of the most serious things that could happen in the political life of this country. I was saying that in this Debate certain utterances that have fallen from the lips of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol have been criticised. He stated that he was in favour of Orders-in-Council for the purpose of facilitating and getting through Parliament the business which the Party he represents might wish to get through. He did not want the business to be held up unnecessarily. There has been a great noise about that and a great deal of effort made to show that when Labour comes in there will be a sort of dictatorship. That has been stated. I back that idea. The present Government do not back that idea. They are against it. Why? Because Labour, through the mouth of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, says that it will do certain things. The present Government are doing those things to-day.
It is all right if the Tories do it. You may call them the National Government or any name you like. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. It is the Tory machine that dominates the Government. What about the Prime Minister? The Land Taxes have to go. That is the last of his Socialism that has been washed out. He is away with the Tories and I believe he is going to join the Tory Party. There would be no word about it if it were the Tories who were suggesting the idea of dictatorship, but if it comes from one who sits on these benches, it is all wrong. The Government are taking away the power that we ought to retain, the right of the representatives of the people to come to a British House of Commons and to criticise the Government, and to assist in making the laws of the country. That
is our function. The laws are not made just for the Government. The laws are not made by the Cabinet. The Government submit Bills in order that we may all give our quota of criticism, and out of that criticism there emerges eventually an Act of Parliament. That has always been the rule of this House until the present Minister of Labour arrived. He is of that nice disposition which can get round tight corners. He is second to none in this House in that respect. He is the man to introduce this novel, this revolutionary idea. Revolutionary means something that has never been done before.
The board that is to be appointed will hold in their hands the future welfare of tens of thousands of citizens of this country. They will lay down certain rules and regulations. The way in which the unemployed are treated is a standing disgrace. We know how they are being treated at the moment. Fifteen and threepence a week—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a Standing Order, No. 18, from which I have just refreshed my memory. It deals with irrelevance or tedious repetition. That applies to the remarks of others as well as to those of the hon. Member. I have warned the hon. Member already about irrelevance. He cannot go on like this.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not think that I have repeated myself since you came in. All I can say is that somebody must have told tales out of school. I leave it at that. We shall go into the Lobby on this question because we are supporting the British Constitution. The Cabinet have to take the responsibility of being the first in this country to show us the way, to show us how to break the Constitution within the Constitution, how to mould it, how to bend it just to our will. They can go ahead. They are all-powerful at the moment. They ought to be using that power with discretion, but they are not doing so. They are showing us the way, and from that point of view I thank them. We shall go into the Lobby against their proposal, but we shall use it against them on future occasions.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I should like to reply to an argument of criticism against the Amendment used by the hon.
and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). He suggested that this Amendment was not properly brought forward by hon. Members above the Gangway or supported from these benches because we had said, with regard to other parts of the Bill, that the mere approval of Parliament was not a power we think anything of, and that unless there was power of amendment it was no good to have the mere power of approval. I think he is making a purely verbal point. There are, quite obviously, three different stages of Parliamentary control. There is the first stage, in which a matter is brought before Parliament and submitted to Parliament to be moulded by the Members present, who may move their Amendments and make themselves responsible for the ultimate form which the rule or regulation, or whatever it may be, shall take. That is the highest degree of control, and on the most important matters in the Bill, the regulations, for instance, as distinct from the rules we, and I think hon. Members above the Gangway, will be satisfied with nothing less. On the second stage, mere approval without power of Amendment is not as good as the first one, but it is most certainly better than being left with the power of making a Prayer, and nothing else.

Mr. SPENS: It was stated, two nights ago, by the hon. Member's own party that it was quite worthless. They are now supporting that procedure.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I imagine that the hon. and learned Member has followed my argument. A thing may be comparatively worthless, but there may be something lower than that. The hon. Member is dealing with a phrase, and nothing else, and making not the slightest attempt to get at the obvious meaning behind the words. If I say that a particular speech made in this House is worthless, I do not mean that I have never heard a worse one. It is an expression of strong criticism and disapproval, and nothing more. With regard to the most important matters, the full power of amendment is the only thing that is any good, and anything else may be described as worthless, but when you come to the rules and you have a more modified form of Parliamentary control, any form which gives an expression of approval is better than pro-
cedure by Prayer, which, as hon. Members have previously shown, means giving the House no power at all.
The hon. and learned Member went on to say that this power of making rules which were only the subject of Prayer existed with regard to 101 Acts of Parliament. I think he has misunderstood the feeling that exists on these benches, and, I think, the feeling that exists on the benches above the Gangway. This Bill is not like the other 101 Acts of Parliament. This is legislation of a very particular kind in regard to which we believe that it is necessary that Parliament should have very particular control. The object of this legislation, it has been said, is to take the question of unemployment out of politics, a thing which we do not desire, and we desire to exercise a much closer scrutiny over matters of mere formality and procedure than we should with regard to legislation of another kind. I admit that this particular Sub-section deals with procedure rules, not with the more vital regulations, but even procedure rules may be of the greatest moment to thousands of people who will come under their operation. The Amendment, therefore, rightly requires that this House should have the power of expressing its assent to them, although in regard to the more vital matters we require a much greater degree of control.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This is really a matter of some substance and importance. The argument has been used that this procedure has been adopted in other Acts of Parliament, under the Anomalies Act, in which case the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority said that it should be done by a Prayer. But it is a practice that is not to be commended. If there is one thing more than another which should make us think twice about it, it is what has happened under the Anomalies Act. The Government have now made the anomalies subject to the approval of Parliament, because by experience they have found that too great a power has been given to what are commonly called the bureaucrats. There is one argument which should make Parliament reverse what the Government are proposing to do here. You set up a
board of five persons. It is an experiment in unemployment insurance. For the first time we are giving a board powers in relation to able-bodied relief and at the same time we are abolishing the public assistance committees. The board is to operate the Bill. This is said to be a matter of procedure and does not necessarily involve policy, and that the board should therefore be allowed to make their own rules of procedure.
These rules are to be put before Parliament by a board whose composition we do not know. Nor do we know how it will approach this problem. It is most important, apart altogether from the question as to whether the procedure is right or wrong, that the House of Commons should have some say as to the line of approach the board shall adopt. The Amendment if it was carried would give the House of Commons the first opportunity of reviewing the board and its outlook on the question. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) says that an hon. Member of the Liberal party has described the proposal as worthless, and that therefore it is inconsistent for them to ask for it now. It may have been worthless in regard to the particular matter under discussion at that moment, but I do not think it worthless in this particular case. It will give the House of Commons an opportunity of reviewing the work of the board so far as they are laying down rules of procedure. It may be that after the first rules have been made Parliament will trust the board with the work, but it is an experiment.
We have a new board, untried and unknown, and therefore Parliament should express its view. Procedure can be very important. It may indeed govern the policy which follows, and therefore Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing the work of the board at the earliest opportunity. It may be said that it can be done by a Prayer after Eleven o'clock at night. That means that the work of this board, which will be one of the most important bodies in Great Britain, perhaps more important than Parliament itself, with a power of life and death, will be discussed at eleven or twelve o'clock at night, which would be neither complimentary to the board nor to the House.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Unless the Prayer is put down in pursuance of an Act of Parliament an ordinary Member of this House is unable to secure time after Eleven o'clock at night unless the Government gives time, and unless the Government gives time it is impossible even to discuss it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not sure about that. I was thinking of the procedure in regard to other Prayers. Under the Anomalies Act we dealt with these matters after Eleven o'clock. I have no doubt that an opportunity could be made to get a discussion in some roundabout fashion. But that is not the point. This board is an important body, and I think the House should insist that at the first opportunity it should get to know its approach to the problem, and if it is going to be harsh or unbending it is just as well that the House of Commons should say what it thinks of it. If it is only a minority, the minority should express its views right away rather than let the board be unaware of the strong feeling against its general lines of conduct and approach.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I simply want to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) with one or two observations of my own. We had a discussion on this subject in Committee and the reply of the Solicitor-General was very unsatisfactory. The point has been made that the rules which are now being discussed are merely matters of procedure; in other words, that they are merely to give effect to the powers given to the board in the Bill, and to the regulations, which will have to be positively approved by Parliament. It seems to me to be a somewhat unnecessarily cumbrous procedure for the rule's to be confirmed by the Minister and laid before Parliament, while the regulations have to be approved by Parliament. If the rules have to be made so clear and positive that the Minister must approve of them, it cannot be very cumbrous for Parliament to have positive approval or disapproval of them. I cannot see why the Minister, who is the servant of this House, should have the power to approve or disapprove of these rules and for that power to be withheld from the House.
On this matter I should have thought that we should have had some support from hon. Members opposite who represent industrial constituencies. The welfare of their constituents is deeply concerned in what this board does. They have approved in principle of the setting up of the board and of the main structure of the Bill, but, nevertheless, the manner in which their constituents are going to be treated will entirely pass out of their hands unless these rules are submitted to Parliament for positive approval. There is nothing cumbrous about it. It means that before they can be carried out Parliament has to sanction them.
It is said that the main portion of this work will be carried out by regulations and that we have power to approve or disapprove of the regulations. But the regulations apply to a very limited part of Part II of the Bill; they apply only to the conditions under which allowances are to be granted, and the actual content of the allowance procedure, the important matter, is the manner in which the regulations will be interpreted by rules. Last night the Minister said that it was their desire to have uniformity in the administration of unemployment insurance benefit, with flexibility. What does "flexibility" mean? It means, in sc far as conditions are uniform, that the regulations are determined; and in so far as the conditions are flexible that the flexibility will be determined by rule. In point of fact, what will decide how much this and that man will receive will be determined not by regulation but by rule.
The argument has been advanced, both inside and outside this House, that there is so much work devolving upon Members of Parliament in these days that it is not merely inexpedient but inefficient to place upon them the duty of having to amend Bills in Committee, and that, consequently, what we ought to do is to approve of legislation in principle and allow it to be carried out by the Civil Service, or by boards specially appointed for the purpose. I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal of weight in that argument and that, as a matter of fact, this House has to determine between legislation by Bill and legislation by decree. At the moment we are pausing midway between the two positions, and we are not efficient in either. Certainly, if that argument is correct it means that
a vast amount can be done by the Civil Service without the House knowing anything at all about it in the first place. We are faced with an accomplished fact—the evil is done and we have to undo it. These rules are important and hon. Members cannot contest that statement. If they are merely put upon the Table of the House they may pass into law without the House noticing them at all. The time of Members is very fully occupied and they have vast numbers of documents to read.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But the Rules begin to operate the moment they are laid on the Table and before it is possible to challenge them.

Mr. BEVAN: Yes I understand that, but we would have the right to put down a Prayer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But they would be working already.

Mr. BEVAN: Nevertheless, they are to be laid on the Table of the House as soon as is practicable, and before they could do much mischief we might have an opportunity of abrogating them, if we could persuade the House to do so. I know how difficult it would be, but I am giving the maximum weight to the Government's argument. But hon. Members must realise that these rules could inflict considerable hardship upon our constituents before we were alive to the position. We ought to be protected against that eventuality. It would be all very well if we were giving the Minister power to make rules under an Act of Parliament. That would not be too bad. I disapproved of the Anomalies Act but under that Act it was the Minister who made the rules. In the case of that Act and in the case of other legislation we had one check. We could put Questions on the Order Paper from day to day checking the administration, and we could direct the attention of Parliament to what was happening in the administration. But here is a board concerning which we are not to have that power. We will not be able to direct the attention of Parliament to any abuses that may arise and, that being so, it is all the more important that before a rule is carried into effect it should receive the scrutiny and criticism of the House of Commons.
Then perhaps the board would be protected from the everlasting curse of the bureaucrat. That is where lay representation is so useful. The expert always makes mistakes. All experience of civil administration shows that it is the layman who protects the bureaucrat and the expert against blunders. We are the repository of a vast amount of human experience and knowledge in this House, which experts cannot possibly obtain. This is a most unusual experiment. You are destroying hundreds of public authorities and setting up a body of five people who have no contact with the men whose lives they are to govern, except through permanent officials. It seems to me that the House ought to protect itself against the possibilty of this legislation breaking down. I prophesy that the greatest danger to which the board will be exposed will arise out of the separation of the board from the individuals who will come under the board. The old Poor Law administration had this to be said for it, that the Poor Law guardian was in immediate personal contact with the person whom he had to assist. That personal relationship often prevented the guardians from committing brutalities or administrative errors.
But in this case we are to have five people sitting in London who will have no contact of any sort with the people over whom they are to exercise these powers. Indeed it is considered to be a good thing that they should not have any such contact. They will have no means of communication with the people concerned except through the "yes men." I use that term advisedly. It is a marvellous American introduction into our language. All the "yes men" will be employed by the board and it is a very serious matter if the board is to be put into that insular position. If there are too many shock absorbers it will never get into touch with reality.

Mr. CAPORN: Are the "yes men" the people who attend Labour conferences and do as they are told?

Mr. BEVAN: I am always prepared to be courteous and to give way to hon. Members who wish to make interjections if the interjections carry forward the Debate, but I do not like to be interrupted by silly interjections of that sort, which have nothing to do with the serious argument before the House. When I said
"yes men" I meant the unemployment assistance officers appointed by the board. The board will have in their own hands the employment of those men and men in that position are always inclined to be "yes men" no matter how good they are. I am not using exaggerated language. These men will not even be in a position to advise the board. They will merely be executive officers and they will represent the only contact of the board with the people affected. There will not even be advisory committees with any power. If that is the machinery which is to be set up, is it not desirable that, at one point, there should be some contact with the layman—with the elected person? Is it not desirable that there should be some scrutiny by the man who is only concerned about the protection of the individual from harshness and the protection of the board from extravagances or intemperances.
If hon. Members wish to launch the scheme under the best auspices they ought to see to it that not only the regulations but the rules get the positive approval of the House of Commons. If not, it does not require much public administrative experience to realise that hon. Members will find themselves face to face with circumstances in their own constituencies which will compel them to take action. But what action can be taken under the Bill? A Member will have to wait for a year until the Minister's salary comes up for discussion before he can raise the matter in any form in this House. In the meantime, abuses and brutalities may go on and a Member of Parliament will only be able to say, "I am sorry, but the board has almighty power and I can do nothing until I get a Parliamentary opportunity." Having had some experience of Poor Law administration I assure the House that they are very unwise indeed to launch this board upon uncharted seas, with no guidance and with no experience behind it, except the sinister experience of a similar board about 1838 which broke down. I therefore hope that in this case hon. Members will not take the party view but will ask the Minister whether it is not possible that not only he, but the House of Commons, should have the opportunity of scrutinising the rules before they are passed into law.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: May I ask whether the fact that under Clause 53 rules are to be confirmed by the Minister
does not give us the right to raise any question upon them in the House of Commons?

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that we shall not have power to put questions of any sort concerning the rules. I speak subject to the correction of the Minister or the Solicitor-General. I understand that our power will be confined to the right to put down a Prayer.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: indicated dissent.

Mr. BEVAN: The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but all this discussion has proceeded on that basis and if that is not the case the hon. and learned Gentleman would have assisted the House if he had stated the actual position long before now.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. WALLACE: I wish to ask the Minister to deal specifically with the point which I have just raised. We are all aware that it is necessary to have rules, but some of us would view with considerable misgiving the abrogation by the House of all rights regarding those rules. I certainly understood, however, that we would still have the right to bring up in this House any debatable question which arose out of the rides. I thought the fact that the rules are to be confirmed by the Minister, would give us the right to put questions in this House at any time concerning them.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Arising out of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace), may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that when a rule or regulation has been placed before the House and has been the subject of an affirmative resolution, from that moment the Minister himself has no further control over it? I have searched the Bill carefully and there appears to be no initiative on the part of the Minister or anybody else, to raise any question about any regulation, to recall it or criticise it or take any action whatever regarding it, if it has left the House. I would ask the Minister to look into this point and to consider whether it is not necessary that he should protect the House and himself by altering the Bill in this respect.

6.44 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The last point does not, I think, arise on this Amendment. When this matter was discussed during the Committee stage I ventured to suggest that the, sort of criticism then made in support of a similar Amendment ought to be considered in relation to criticisms which were made, with some vehemence at that time, that the House was not getting sufficient time in which to discuss this Bill. Complaints that certain matters are being removed from full discussion in Parliament must be considered side by side with complaints that Parliament is not being given sufficient time to discuss large questions such as those which have had to be considered in connection with this Bill. In a large administrative measure of great importance such as this, obviously those who frame it are faced with the problem which faced those who framed this Bill and which is raised by the Amendment. First of all, certain things have to go into the Bill. Then there are certain things which are obviously proper to be dealt with by rule or regulation drafted by the board or the Statutory Committee, as the case may be, subject to the approval of the Minister. In this Bill there is a procedure for regulations, which must have the affrmative approval of the House. There is the procedure of the Rules, which have to be laid on the Table subject to a Prayer—and I will say a word shortly as to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu).
It is fair to say that the indignation in some of the speeches this afternoon has a certain air of unreality about it when one reminds oneself that under the Anomalies Act the late Administration did not provide for the express approval of the House. Faced by the problem with which, as I say, all framers of Measures such as this are faced, they drew the line in a certain place at that time. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say they have learned, and I hope it is true, but it is a little difficult to attach a great deal of importance to this very violent indignation when we have clearly drawn the line very much more in the direction of preserving the powers of this House than
it was drawn by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. The principle on which we have gone is this: We have taken the regulations which affect the assessment of need, and we have taken the anomalies regulations and said that they must have affirmative approval.
With regard to the other matters, I am not saying that they are not important; what I am saying is that they are proper matters for the other procedure. The other matters which are dealt with by rules are in our opinion important, but proper matters to be dealt with by the procedure which we have provided for them.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what they are?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have a list here, but at this time of the Debate, when everybody who has spoken has had a considerable opportunity of pointing out to the House what are the matters to be dealt with by rules, the hon. Member can hardly ask me to point out what indeed was largely done by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who opened the discussion in a very full and forcible speech. The specific point raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley was whether, when the Statute does not expressly provide for a Prayer, a Prayer can be moved by a private Member unless the Government give time. I think the hon. Member is probably right about that, that is to say, that if no provision is made in the Bill a Prayer cannot be moved unless the Government give time. These matters, as I have said, in our opinion are really procedural and administrative matters which are proper to be dealt with in this way. My right hon. Friend tells me he will reconsider the position before the Bill leaves another place, as to whether this might be brought into the category of those Bills where there is express provision for a Prayer which entitles an hon. Member to move independently of whether the Government give time.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 260; Noes, 60.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[3.56 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eales, John Frederick
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Albery, Irving James
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Allan, Lt. Col. J. Sendeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Allan, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Elmley, Viscount
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Mabane, William


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Bainiel, Lord
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Fox, Sir Gifford
McKie, John Hamilton


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Ganzonl, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bernays, Robert
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Magnay, Thomas


Blindell, James
Gledhill, Gilbert
Maitland, Adam


Bossom, A. C.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Boulton, W. W.
Goldie, Noel B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Martin, Thomas B.


Brass Captain Sir William
Granville, Edgar
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grattan-Doyte, Sir Nicholas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greene, William P. C.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morgan, Robert H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardin, E.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Burnett, John George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Calne, G. R. Hall.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harbord, Arthur
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harris, Sir Percy
Munro, Patrick


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hartigton, Marquess of
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., s.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastte)
North, Edward T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Pearson, William G.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Christie, James Archibald
Holdsworth, Herbert
Potter, John


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clarke, Frank
Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Conant, R. J. E.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ray, Sir William


Cook, Thomas A.
Jamleson, Douglas
Rea, Walter Russell


Cooper, A. Duff
Janner, Barnett
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cross, R. H.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rickards, George William


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knight, Holford
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ross, Ronald D.


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dlckie, John P.
Lees-Jones, John
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duggan, Hubert John
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Spens, William Patrick
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Salt, Edward W.
Stevenson, James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stones, James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwin)
Strauss, Edward A.
White, Henry Graham


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Scone, Lord
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Selley, Harry R.
Summersby, Charles H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sheppereon, Sir Ernest W.
Templeton, William P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Soper, Richard
Tree, Ronald



Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mr. Womersley and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
John, William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[6.51 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Alexander, Sir William
Fox, Sir Gifford
Moss, Captain H. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Munro, Patrick


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Apsley, Lord
Gledhill, Gilbert
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Glossop, C. W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Goff, Sir Park
Palmer, Francis Noel


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goldie, Noel B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peake, Captain Osbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Pearson, William G.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peat, Charles U.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
Penny, Sir George


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Percy, Lord Eustace


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Grigg, Sir Edward
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Potter, John


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Blindell, James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Boulton, W. W.
Hales, Harold K.
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Buchan, John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hornby, Frank
Remer, John R.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, George William


Burghley, Lord
Howard, Tom Forrest
Robinson, John Roland


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross, Ronald D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
James, Wing Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jamleson, Douglas
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ker, J. Campbell
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Christie, James Archibald
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Clarke, Frank
Law, Sir Alfred
Savery, Samuel Servington


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leckie, J. A.
Selley, Harry R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smiles, Lieut. Col. Sir Walter D.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cooper, A. Duff
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Copeland, Ida
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Soper, Richard


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Mabane, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. C. (Partick)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spens, William Patrick


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stevenson, James


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stones, James


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Devies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Davison, Sir William Henry
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sutcliffe, Harold


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dickie, John P.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, s.)


Drewe, Cedric
Magnay, Thomas
Templeton, William P.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Martin, Thomas B.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Milne, Charles
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fermoy, Lord
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles




Wells, Sidney Richard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Whyte, Jardine Bell
Wise, Alfred R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, Sir John James
Mr. Womersley and Major George


Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Worthington, Dr. John V.
Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grovel, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts-, Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stattord
Janner, Barnett
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentina L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D.




Graham.

CLAUSE 49.—(Penalty for fraudulently obtaining allowance and recovery of over-payments.)

4.7 p.m.

Sir FERGUS GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 46, line 7, at the end, to insert :
(3) Any person, being a person who fulfils the qualifications mentioned in subsection (1) of section thirty-seven of this Act, who persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or his family or who persistently contravenes conditions attached in accordance with determinations made under section forty-one of this Act shall be liable on proceedings taken by or on behalf of the Board on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.
It is apparent that the Bill should contain its own provisions for dealing with persons by whom offences are committed under the new scheme. If a man should
persistently refuse to maintain himself or his family, there is an appeal to the appeal tribunal, which may disallow any further allowance for a specified time. Such a man might obviously become a charge upon the local authorities. The local authorities feel that their only protection is the Vagrancy Act, 1824, which condemns a man to a term of imprisonment, if a first offender, as a disorderly person, for a second offence as a rogue and vagabond, and for a third offence as an incorrigible rogue. That places an odium which the local authorities quite naturally shun. Apart from that, there is real doubt whether the local justices or quarter sessions would be prepared to convict under such an Act. A man might be prepared to undergo a term of imprisonment in order to secure that his dependants would be looked after during his absence. Finally, there is some danger of transforming a public assistance service into a semi-penal service, to the cruel harm of very worthy people who must, of necessity, receive some aid from the rates.

4.9 p.m.

Major HILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to find out the position of the local authorities in this matter. I want to know whether the unpleasant duty that the Mover of the Amendment has just detailed is to be performed by the Unemployment Assistance Board or is to be cast on the local authorities. I take it that if there is no power for proceedings to be taken by the board, it must fall on the public assistance committee of the local authority, and, the law being what it is, good or bad, they would be obliged to enforce it. It seems to me that this is a matter that has been omitted from the Bill. Local authorities are all extremely anxious to know whether this duty is cast upon them or not.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that to accept this Amendment would cut right across the whole conception of the Bill. The Bill advisedly is designed in such a way as to leave the public assistance authorities as, so to speak, residuary legatees. This Amendment would create a new criminal offence. The Bill does not create any criminal offences at all, and we think that it is most desirable to leave affairs in the state in which they are, for the reason that an offence does not arise in present circumstances unless the man through his action causes himself or his family to become chargeable. The Amendment would create a new offence in cases where the family did not become chargeable, where the family had means of their own. It is very undesirable to create new offences of that nature, and we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: We appreciate the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary and his clear explanation of what the position is. I think the Mover of the Amendment did not quite understand the consequence of the Amendment. It would create not only a new offence, but an offence which it would be difficult to define, and it might bring in a large number of people whom the supporters of the Amendment would not like to bring in.

Sir F. GRAHAM: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 46, line 7, at the end, to insert :
(3) If it is found at any time that an application for an allowance bas been rejected or a reduced amount has been fixed by the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact, the applicant shall be entitled to recover from the board summarily as a civil debt either the allowance or the difference between the allowance which would otherwise have been determined and the amount he actually received, as the case may be, from the date of the original application, and if any question arises as to the amount to which the applicant is entitled, the question shall be referred in the prescribed manner to the appeal tribunal, and a certificate signed by the clerk of that tribunal, setting forth the decision of the tribunal upon the question, shall be conclusive evidence of the amount to which the applicant is entitled, and any certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved.
The purpose of this Amendment is to protect applicants for benefit who may not have been treated properly owing to non-disclosure of material facts—who may not have received the amount that should have been given to them. The Clause deals with the obtaining of allowances by misrepresentation, and gives the Minister power to recover the money paid. If there has been any non-disclosure of facts the State can get the money back. We agree with that proposal; we do not think that any one should receive money wrongly. But the applicant for relief should have the same protection, and if some mistake is made by which he is deprived of what is his right, it is only fair that he should be able to get the money that is due to him. I am hoping that the Minister will do something to clear away the suspicion that we have. I do not think there was any idea when the Bill was framed of doing any wrong to any applicant, but this Amendment would rectify an omission.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment, and I do so chiefly because I wish to hear from the Minister whether he is able to do anything to meet the case there set forth. I think it will be generally agreed that if, through some mistake on the part of an official, an applicant has not had justice, there should be some means by which he can secure redress. I can imagine nothing which is more likely to cause bad feeling
and bitterness than the knowledge that if an applicant makes a mistake, even unconsciously, action can be taken against him to recover any excess sum which he has received, whereas if a mistake should be made by an official of the Department which tells against the applicant there is no method by which the applicant can get justice. It is small points like these which often lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction, and we ought to make the machinery of this Bill run as smoothly as possible, so that people may have confidence in its administration.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: This question arose in Committee stage, and I then promised hon. Members opposite that I would look into the matter to see whether any further words ought to be added to the Bill. I think the House will appreciate that it would hardly be appropriate to insert in the Bill words giving an applicant power to sue the board, because obviously there is no fixed amount to which the applicant is entitled. All that he is entitled to is what the board, in their discretion, acting within the regulations passed by the House, deem to be appropriate. But obviously there will be a certain number of cases in which, through a genuine mistake made either by the applicant or by the board's officer, payment is made at a less rate than would have been the case if the whole of the circumstances had been known. The appropriate action in that case will be an appeal either by the man, or by the man at the instance of the officer, and we are clear that under Clause 40 there will be ample power to make rules providing for the ante-dating of a decision by the appeal tribunal. My right hon. Friend has authorised me to give a promise that when the rules are drawn up he will see that provision is made in them, under Clause 40, to give the appeal tribunal power to ante-date their decisions in appropriate cases, and I think that meets the point which the hon. Member had in mind.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I thank the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman for the consideration they have given to this matter. Having heard their statement, I think that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 46, line 31, to leave out "three years," and to insert "one year."
This matter was discussed in Committee, and we undertook to look into it. As I explained to the Mover of the Amendment in Committee, this Subsection deals with summary proceedings for the recovery of civil debts due to the board, and does not cover the whole of the possible rights of the board. This Amendment proposes to reduce the period within which summary proceedings can be taken from three years to one year, and we agree that it is desirable in cases of this sort that if action is to be taken it should be taken as soon as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.—(Superannuation rights of officers of local authorities entering the service of the Unemployment Assistance Board.)

4.20 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 48, line 12, after "Health," to insert "and the Secretary of State."
This Clause deals with the rules that will have to be made regarding the superannuation rights of local government officials who are taken over by the board in England, Scotland and Wales. It is obvious that in the case of Scotland it will be necessary to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as the Minister of Health in drawing up these rules, and this is a drafting Amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State is consulted.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 55.—(Interpretation of Part II and construction of references).

7.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 51, line 23, at the end, to insert :
(4) References in this Part of this Act to a 'Government Department' shall not include references to the Unemployment Assistance Board.
The purpose of the Amendment is purely to make it quite clear that the references in the Bill to a "Government Department," as for instance where a Government Department is concerned in providing buildings, premises, or such things, shall not include references to the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is a mere question of definition.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Transitory provisions as to benefit.)

7.1 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 54, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (3).

This Amendment is consequential upon the restoration of Clause 4 (1) of the Act of 1930, which was repealed in the first draft and subsequently restored; this Subsection is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the crediting of contributions in respect of persons continuing education.)

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 58, line 11, to leave out from the begin-
ning, to "continue," in line 13, and to insert "the period of compulsory elementary instruction ends."

This Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments dealing with a question which we have already discussed once or twice, namely, the crediting of contributions to children attending schools in by-law areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 58, line 22, leave out "at which the said obligation ceases," and insert "aforesaid."—[Mr. Hudson.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee.)

Mrs. COPELAND: I beg to move, in page 61, line 9, after "period," to insert :
which, in the cases of each of the members first appointed, and of any member appointed to fill a casual vacancy, shall be of such duration not exceeding five years as may be determined by the Minister, and in the case of all other members shall be a period.
The reason for this Amendment is a very simple one. It is not in the best interests of the public that all the members of a committee should be changed at the same moment. Experience has shown in the past that if the whole of a committee changes at once, the new members find themselves in a difficult position. The system proposed by the Amendment has been worked in municipalities and also in club committees, and has been found to operate very well
I trust that the Minister will accept this Amendment, for I feel confident that if he does so he will strengthen the hands of those who are in the future to have the responsibility of successfully carrying out the legislation that this House has initiated.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a genuine Amendment of a first-class character, which must inevitably improve the Bill as a whole. This is one of the most important committees that has ever been set up; it administers the funds of a very large body and comes into contact with many hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens. In these circumstances, if you could have continuity of tenure of that office, not too long, it would be very much in the interest of the fund as a whole and of the committee. For that reason I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. I feel sure, at the same time, that it does not cut across any principle or procedure of the Bill.

7.7 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I can give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend who spoke last that this Amendment does not cut across the principles of the Bill. On the other hand, I think that the Amendment improves the Bill. It is designed to give effect to a promise made either by myself or by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage to consider the point raised by, I think, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) that five years was too long. What this Amendment does is, first of all, to meet the point raised by the hon. Lady who moved it, and to secure that the Committee do not all retire at the same time but retire, as it were, by rotation. On the other hand, it meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and secures that the period shall not be more than two, three or four years. I should like, however, to say that, as the House knows, one of the members of this Statutory Committee is appointed after consultation with employers' organisations, and one after consultation with workers' organisations.
I invite expressions of opinion upon this point, but I think that it would possibly be more satisfactory if the period were the same for each of the two members, so that the employers' representative would not be appointed for three years and the workers' representative for two, or the employers' representative for four years and the workers' representative for three. It would be more satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman opposite if these two representatives were appointed for the same period, whatever that period may be. Of course, it is always open for the same gentleman to be re-appointed, and these two members can be reappointed whatever the period.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I was somewhat concerned when I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, but I think it is a very good thing, as the committee have to operate, that they should so finish their terms of office as to leave a certain number of their members to continue, so that they enjoy a continuity of experience. The provision will, I am sure, ultimately give exactly what we were asking. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved that the term of membership should be three years. While that will happen in the case of certain members, the method of changing office in rotation does not necessarily mean that the period of office will be limited to three years, though in the first instance it will be so, in order to get what the right hon. Gentleman wants. As to the other point, it is just a common sense matter of experience that such representatives should retire or begin their term of office together. The main purpose of this Amendment is fulfilled, and the main purpose of the Amendment that I asked for is fulfilled, by the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance.

Amendment agreed to.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 62, line 33, column 3, to leave out "Definition of 'suitable employment,'" and to insert "Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit."

This Amendment and the following Amendment are consequential on the alteration made in Clause 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 62, line 36,. columns 2 and 3, at the end, insert :
Section nine.—Provision as to payment of benefit."—[Mr. Hudson.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE (Minor Amendments).

7.13 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 67, line 28, at the end, to insert :
Schedule I, Part II.—In paragraph (d), at end, insert a new sub-section—
( ) in universities and colleges which are constituent colleges of universities.
The object of this Amendment is to make a small addition to those forms of employment specified in Part II of the First Schedule of the 1920 Act, in respect of which exemption from insurance can be granted by the Minister on application if he is able to satisfy himself that these employés enjoy such a practical permanency of tenure of their employment that it is unnecessary for them in their own interests to be insured against unemployment. The bodies on whose behalf this privilege is claimed are universities and constituent colleges of universities. The Minister will note that the Amendment is supported by one or more representatives of all the universities which will be affected by it, that is to say the nine English universities, the Universities of London, Scotland and Wales, but not the University of Belfast. I have not been able to get into touch with the representatives of Belfast University. The Amendment does not affect Oxford and Cambridge, because these universities are already able to claim, and have successfully claimed, exemption for the corresponding group of their employés. They have been able to do this because they have come under one of the groups that are already mentioned in the Schedule to the 1920 Act, the group which consists of persons entitled to rights in a superannuation fund established by or in pursuance of an Act of Parliament for the benefit of persons in that employment.
The universities that I represent and, I think, the other universities concerned, cannot claim under this Sub-section, merely because they are incorporated not by Act of Parliament but by a Royal Charter. They see no reason why this purely technical and historic difference should prevent their enjoying the
privilege already possessed by the older and wealthier universities. With regard to my own group of eight universities, I have received letters from the Vice-Chancellors of the four largest, including the large majority of the graduates, expressing their strong approval of this Amendment. Two of the universities are more or less indifferent; one has not expressed an opinion, and one only would on the whole prefer to do without the privilege.
The numbers affected, if this Amendment were carried, would not be large, and could not possibly make any great difference to the Insurance Fund, even if, as is by no means certain, all the universities concerned decided to apply for exemption. All that is desired is that the door shall be open to them to do so. The numbers cannot be large, because the Amendment concerns only those employés who are earning under £250 a year and who are on the permanent staff, mainly such persons as clerical workers, laboratory assistants, porters in permanent employ, and so forth.
Some hon. Members may possibly object to granting exemptions from insurance in any circumstances, and I confess that I am one of those who, as a general principle, would rather see the national insurance system extended than curtailed. But that general principle is not raised by this Amendment. So long as the exemption of groups of workers is permitted at all, exemptions should be based on some consistent principle. On no principle of logic or justice can we say that the older and wealthier universities should enjoy the privilege and not extend it to the newer, poorer and more democratically-constituted universities. The financial burden of contributions for these employers is not considerable, neither is it negligible. In the case of one university it is estimated by the Vice-Chancellor that if exemption were granted it would mean a saving to the university fund of, perhaps, £300 a year. That is a sum worth considering in the case of a body comparatively newly-established and anxious to extend and improve its equipment, its libraries and so forth.
The House can rest assured that the exemption will not be granted by the Minister unless he is fully satisfied that it will not hinder the employés affected
Indeed, the burden of so satisfying himself is directly placed upon him by law, and the advantages of exemption extend, of course, to the employés as well as to the universities. In most cases the employé is already obliged to contribute to a superannuation fund, and naturally he is not keen on paying weekly contributions to a fund from which, by reason of the nature of his employment, he is perfectly certain never to have to claim benefit.
I would like to add a word to explain why this Amendment was not brought forward on the Committee stage. It did not at first occur to us that this Measure did give an opportunity to put right this small anomaly in the working of the unemployment insurance legislation, and when it did occur to us we thought that Clause 2 sufficiently covered the point. I will not trouble the House by referring to that in detail, but anybody taking the words of the Clause in their natural interpretation would suppose that it did give these universities the right to claim an exemption which is already enjoyed by bodies is so analogous a position as Oxford and Cambridge. But a doubt arose as to whether Clause 2 would cover the case and we consulted the Ministry, and we have felt it best to put down this Amendment. I would ask the Minister, if he possibly can, to accept the Amendment; but if he feels that he cannot do so without a further and longer consultation with those affected, I hope he will give us an assurance that he will take the matter into full consideration before the Bill comes before another place, where, if he does not put down an Amendment, no doubt that will be done by some of those interested in the welfare of these universities.

Mr. WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment, and in view of the very full explanation given to the House by the hon. Lady I do not think I need elaborate any of the points.

7.20 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am afraid I can hold out no hope whatever of giving further consideration to this matter. I have considered it most carefully since it was first brought to my notice by the hon. Lady, but it is not an Amendment which I should be justified in accepting,
and I confess that I was rather surprised that it should have been moved. During the whole course of our proceedings, both in Committee and on Report stage, there has been in all parts of the House a desire that this scheme of insurance should not be further limited but, if anything, extended. Indeed, I have given undertakings with regard to more than one considerable body of persons that I would not only consider their case but put it before the Statutory Committee for examination. This Amendment goes in an entirely opposite direction, proposing not to extend the scope of insurance but further to diminish it. The hon. Lady cited the case of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and said that other universities ought to be put in the same position. The first comment I have to make upon that is that the universities themselves are by no means unanimous in asking for exemption. According to my information, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester are in favour of it, Leeds is against it, and Sheffield and Durham are neutral. Be that as it may, there is this great distinction between Oxford and Cambridge and any one of those other universities, namely, that the superannuation funds of Oxford and Cambridge are established in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, which puts them in an entirely different category from the others. The hon. Lady has two Amendments on the Paper, and presumably she is moving the first one.

Miss RATH BONE: No, I am moving the second, and I read it.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. Therefore, I need not stress the point I was going to make that the first Amendment goes far beyond the scope of the universities. For the reasons I have given I cannot accept this Amendment, and, if necessary, I must ask the House to support me in that view.

Miss RATHBONE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he makes this sharp distinction between a superannuation fund established by Act of Parliament and a superannuation fund established, as in the case of Liverpool and most of the other universities, by Royal Charter? A second question is : If it is his general principle not in any way to extend exemptions,
how does he defend Clause 2, which definitely gives him power to extend exemptions to groups of employés analogous to those who are already exempted?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not going to enter into a discussion of Clause 2, which we passed about two months ago, but there is obviously all the difference in the world between a Royal Charter and an Act of Parliament.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is not accepting this Amendment, but at the same time I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for moving it, because it has given the Minister the opportunity of making the kind of speech which we have been making for weeks in favour of an all-in unemployed insurance scheme. We have held very firmly that all classes of people should be included in the insurance scheme, and I do not think this is the time to begin exempting people. A curious thing about unemployment insurance is the very strong case made out by certain individuals and classes of people for exemption. There are sections of the black-coated workers who could put up just as strong an argument for exemption as these people—and many of these are black-coated workers—and it is strange to notice that their keenness for exemption is in proportion to their security. I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman has refused this Amendment, and I venture to prophesy that the day will come when the State will have to save people such as these from themselves.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I am glad the Minister has not seen fit to accept the Amendment, and I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady moved it, because if I remember rightly she has put forward a different argument on other occasions. One point she made was that in the case of one university there would be a saving of £300, and she also said that it was not right to expect people to pay insurance who were in permanent jobs and would never come on the fund. I want to bring in those persons who are in employment but probably will never be troubled by unemployment, in order to help the unemployed. All our arguments have been
addressed to the desirability of bringing more and more people into unemployment insurance, so that the burden may be more equally distributed. Our argument has been that unemployment insurance ought to be paid by the State, but if we cannot get that we want all employed persons brought into the insurance scheme, so that the area of the burden will be broadened. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) was in a curious position in seconding the Amendment, and I wish he had been able to explain why he did it, because it is very difficult to understand his action. We have been very pleased to get the opportunity of emphasising our view on the point raised, which is that we should try to get as many people as possible into insurance and close the door to exemptions.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The hon. Lady who moved this Amendment has moved it on behalf of certain universities with which she is concerned, and it is rather difficult to understand why the Minister should draw a distinction between those universities and the others referred to. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with that point by simply telling us that the difference between an Act of Parliament and a Royal Charter is a very wide one. He never explained what he meant by that. That does not make very much difference from one point of view, whatever it does from the point of view of the practicability of this Amendment. We are not trying to upset the Bill by making exemptions compulsory. It is a voluntary thing, which may suit particular institutions and their servants, and the Amendment is moved not merely in the interests of those institutions but also in the interests of the people concerned. The Amendment would enable the authorities concerned to deal with the matter on the merits of the case from the point of view of the individual people interested.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 71, line 20, column 2, to leave out from "4" to the end of line 27, and to insert :
for the words 'or is under the provisions of the principal Act disqualified for receiving benefit' there shall be substituted the words' (other than the first statutory condition) or is under the provisions of the
Acts relating to unemployment insurance disqualified for receiving benefit, or to be deemed not to be unemployed,' and the words 'under this Part of this Schedule' shall be omitted.
This is a drafting Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: Amendments are much easier to follow when they apply to a Clause than when they deal with Schedules, which is rather a different matter. I am not quite sure what these words are intended to define, and I should like the Parliamentary to tell us a little bit more about this. It seems to embody some rather sweeping alterations which do not appear on the face of it.

Mr. HUDSON: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I have two tpyewritten pages here, but probably the House would not want me to go through them. I can give the hon. Member an assurance that the Amendment does not make any material difference to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 71, line 28, column 2, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 49, and to insert :
For paragraph 5 there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
5. Save as otherwise provided by regulations made in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph a continuous period of unemployment shall be deemed to begin on the date on which the insured contributor makes application for benefit in the prescribed manner; but regulations may be made under section thirty-five of the principal Act for authorising some earlier date to be substituted for the date of the application :
Provided that, except in cases where good cause is shown for delay in making the application, such regulations shall not authorise the substitution of an earlier date for any purpose other than that of computing the first week of a continuous period of unemployment in a case in which the applicant, upon an application for benefit which begins his benefit year, proves in the prescribed manner that a continuous period of unemployment was in fact current at the date of that application.

This Amendment is to ensure that a man who has been on transitional payments or, under the new scheme, in receipt of allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board, will not have to
serve a new waiting period when he goes back on to benefit.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 72, line 42, at the end, to insert :
Section 2.—At the enl of the section there shall be insertel the following subsection :
(3) Regulations may be made by the Minister under section thirty-five of the principal Act providing that where a dependant is partly maintained by each of two or more persons entitled to benefit, each of whom would be entitled to an increased rate of benefit in respect of that dependant if he were wholly or mainly maintaining him, then, if the contributions made by those two or more persons towards the maintenance of that dependant amount in the aggregate to sums which would, if they had been contributed by any one of those persons, have been sufficient to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f) of the last foregoing subsection, that dependant shall be deemed for the purpose of the enactments aforesaid to be wholly or mainly maintained by such of those persons as may be prescribed by the regulations.

This Amendment is moved in order to carry out a promise which I made during the Committee stage, to cover the case of several persons who maintain or help to maintain a dependant, and to enable one of those persons on becoming unemployed to draw dependant's allowance.

Amendment agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and proceedings of Unemployment Assistance Board.)

7.33 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to move, in page 73, line 30, at the end, to insert :
At least one member of the board shall be a woman.
As the Minister was so very far-seeing and gracious in accepting the Amendment in regard to the Statutory Committee, I am certain that he will show sweet reasonableness and wisdom in accepting this Amendment, which stands in my name. I have spent many years in this House and have made many completely unnecessary speeches, and I will not weary the House with one now. I will simply say how very grateful people are, both in the House and outside, for the spirit that he has shown in dealing with this Bill, and particularly for the way in which he has given women complete equality with men. He has done a
very great deal to make up the disadvantages which women suffered in having once had a woman Minister of Labour. I feel that he has reconciled many women to having a man as Minister of Labour. I hope that he will accept this Amendment, and also the thanks of thousands of women throughout the country who have watched this matter with gratefulness.

Mr. G. WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. BETTERTON: My name appears on the Paper against this Amendment, and I shall undoubtedly accept it. The board will be essentially a body on which there should be a woman representative, because many of the matters with which they will deal are those in which a woman's opinion will be necessary.

7.35 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I rise for the double purpose of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the concession that he has made, and of replying to the little gibe made by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) who attributed all the evils of the Anomalies Act to a woman Minister of Labour, by reminding her that if a woman Minister placed the Anomalies Act upon the Statute Book, it is the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister who has kept it there and has operated it as it has been operated during the last two years.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The House will agree that it is a very wise decision of the Minister to put a woman upon the board. I am sure he must be satisfied with the things that have been said, and that he must be rather embarrassed at the good things that have been said about him.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I protested against a similar Amendment in Committee, and I desire to protest also against this Amendment being accepted. If women be the best people to put on the board I cannot see why the whole board should not consist of women, but I am not at all certain that they would get on very well together. The best people should be on the board, irrespective of sex. It is a great pity that an Amendment should be accepted which may be regarded as a
maximum, since minima are usually taken as maxima.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I agree with this Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see that care is taken in regard to the type of woman put on the board. Frankly, the example that we get occasionally from the Noble Lady who moved the Amendment does something to guide us as to the dangers in that selection. It requires the very greatest care, not only of the Minister but of his very able Parliamentary Secretary. The very unkind and untrue reference made by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) to the Minister's predecessor shows the danger of having a woman on the board.
I remember when women had very little opportunity of speaking for themselves, and in those days I was one of those who used to speak for them. Now, not only are they capable of speaking for themselves, but, when they do speak, some of them have not the grace to remember those days, and to give credit to some of the very earliest advocates, which would include the lady who occupied the position of Minister of Labour. I am sure that the Noble Lady is old enough herself to remember—it may be that the days before the War are a little too far back for her to remember, but I am not quite sure about that. As she is a lady, I should say that she cannot remember quite so long. At any rate, she has had a good education and good opportunities, and I am sure that she knows of the things that happened in her young days, prior to the War.
I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. I should like to see women on important bodies or executives, or whatever it may be, in the country. The Noble Lady, and others who have spoken after her, forget that what they stand for is equality with men, but that what they have now is a privilege for women. I hope that the Noble Lady, in her future references, will be a little more generous to her own sex.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I say that I have had to defend the late Minister of Labour against her own party in this House. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do.

Amendment agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Modification of enactments relating to the relief of the poor.)

7.41 p.m.

Sir F. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 76, line 17, to leave out "or affect any powers or duties."
There are three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this matter, with the object of securing that the board shall deal with all conditions of sudden or urgent necessity arising in the cases of recipients of allowances. It is undesirable that the obligations of a relieving officer under Section 17 of the Act of 1930 should apply to any person in the area, because of the possibility of assistance being obtained from two sources. It is conceivable that a man receiving an allowance from the Unemployment Assistance Board would be in urgent necessity by the end of the week, and that he might require help in kind from the relieving officer.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment for very much the same reason that we could not accept a similar Amendment moved by the hon. Member earlier this afternoon. Our intention in drafting the Bill was to leave the Poor Law as the residuary legatee. It is obvious that it is even more important in a case like this, of sudden and urgent necessity, that there should be one person only whom everyone knows is the right person to whom to apply. Quite apart from the absurdity of setting up a parallel organisation throughout the country, if the board had an officer whose duty it was to relieve some of those necessities, and the local authority had a similar officer, time might be lost if there were a dispute, between the two officers, as to whether a man came under the care of the first or the second. One of the occasions upon which sudden and urgent necessity must often arise is the question of medical assistance, that of a man or a woman suddenly needing an order for the hospital. Under the Bill the board have no power to take that into account. It is left to the local authority, and if the Amendment were accepted a man who normally went to the board's officer and found that he required medical
assistance would have to go to a different officer to get the necessary order of admission to the local infirmary. I think my hon. Friend, on reflection, will realise that we could not possibly accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Repeals.)

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 80, line 23, column 3, to leave out "sub-section (1) of section four."

This Amendment and the two following Amendments are drafting Amendments consequent on the alteration of Clause 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made : In page 80, line 30, column 3, after "Act," insert:
in Section nine the word 'either,' and the words from 'or because ho has failed,' to '1927;'.

In line 31, column 3, leave out "nine."—[Mr. Hudson.]

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.

7.47 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 11) Order, 1934, dated the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Mr. SPEAKER: It might perhaps be for the convenience of the House to discuss together all the Import Duties Orders which are on the Paper, and if a Division is demanded, as each Order is put from the Chair the House can then divide. Does that meet with the approval of the House?

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It is quite convenient, Sir, as far as the Opposition are concerned.

Dr. BURGIN: In accordance with that arrangement, I may perhaps open Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14 and Substitution Order No. 1 together. Perhaps the best way to deal with the matter would be to give a short
explanation to the House of what these five Orders do and what commodities they cover, and draw attention to the two which I apprehend are the most likely to occasion any demand for inquiry. The last Order which was approved by the House was Order No. 10 on the 16th April. Order No. 11 increases by five per cent. the duty on certain paper and boards. No. 12 removes zip fasteners from the 20 per cent. duty class and imposes a specific duty at a higher rate, and it also imposes specific duties on component parts of such goods. The effect of No. 13 is to impose a specific duty on typewriters in certain cases in place of the ad valorem duty of 20 per cent., and it increases the duty on imported machines at low prices, especially secondhand machines, and imposes specific duties on parts and on spools.
No. 14 imposes an additional duty of 15 per cent. on lead acetate of certain grades. Substitution Order No. 1 of 1934 replaces the existing ad valorem duty on eggs not in shell and on peppercorns, and is entirely for administrative convenience. The specific duty is designed to be equivalent in incidence as far as possible to the ad valorem rate, but, of course, it may in some circumstances, once you make a specific duty, mean an increase if the price falls, and in so far as it may possibly increase the duty it is necessary to bring the Order before the House for approval. Of those five Orders, I doubt very much whether the House will require any particular information about the last, the Substitution Order.

Mr. C. BROWN: What about peppercorns? Are they produced in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: First of all, I will say that the first Order, dealing with paper and boards, may perhaps require a word or two. It might be of interest to know that 7,000,000 feet of zip fasteners are consumed in this country each year. The unit of sale for a zip fastener is a footage, and the consumption is roughly 7,000,000 feet a year.

Sir S. CRIPPS: What about imports?

Dr. BURGIN: The imports are trifling, and the large manufacture is entirely taken care of by manufacturers in this country. The duty on typewriters is
necessary for reasons about which the House has heard a great deal at Question Time, namely, the cheaper machines that have come in from the United States. Some of the figures that I have are rather of interest in that connection, but I think I will pass rather lightly over some of those matters.

Sir S. CRIPPS: What about zip fasteners?

Dr. BURGIN: The zip fastener is merely removed from fasteners liable to an aggregate duty of 20 per cent., and a duty of a specific nature is imposed. It is a higher duty. The imports are about 2,000,000 feet, our exports are 3,000,000 feet, and the production at home is 8,000,000 feet, so that the consumption at home is 7,000,000 feet out of a total of 10,000,000 feet.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Where are the imports from?

Dr. BURGIN: The imports are partly from Japan. The imports of the cheaper character have recently come in at abnormally low prices from Japan as an entirely unusual and new source. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied that to preserve the industry these specific duties should be imposed and that to obviate the possibility of the protection being overcome by component parts being imported for assembly here, the duty should be levied on the parts as well as on the whole. The duties only apply to a zip fastener as a whole or to a component part of a zip fastener separately. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are deferring for later consideration zip fasteners imported as parts of various other articles. These are mostly from four to sixteen inches in length, heavy weight, light weight and feather weight, and made of nickel silver or gilded metal.
I do not know whether there are any particulars needed with regard to typewriters, but I have the particulars of employment, unemployment, imports, and so on should the House want them. Lead acetate has recently been delivered in this country at prices far below British costs of production. The estimated consumption here is about 600 tons, chiefly used by paint and colour manufacturers, and 30 tons annually are used by the cotton industry.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Where are the imports from?

Dr. BURGIN: The imports are described as Continental, but if the hon. and learned Member would like them subdivided, I may be able to obtain the details.

7.56 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It is quite impossible, as one has said before on these Import Duties Orders, to do anything very constructive or helpful, because it has no effect if one does it, and nobody has very much material upon which to do it, but I did ask the hon. Gentleman certain questions about zip fasteners, because this looks to me like a first-class ramp. Zip fasteners are, of course, a raw material, very largely, for the manufacture of bags, boots, shoes, and other articles, and the manufacture, which I believe to be carried on in this country by very efficient machinery—chiefly manufactured abroad, of which I saw an example a few days ago—is in the hands, I think, of Imperial Chemical Industries. The foreign manufacture is also very largely in the hands of Imperial Chemical Industries. The main other manufacture is in Canada, and the whole manufacture is controlled by the monopoly on the patent. I happen to know something about it, because I have just been fighting a case before the Privy Council concerned with the zip fasteners.
Therefore, this increase in taxation is something which it seems to me is an increase on the raw material for the benefit of a monopoly trade in this country, and there does not seem to be any particular reason why that increase should be made. If Japanese goods are coming in at abnormally low prices, this will be no good. It will not be sufficiently large to defeat the abnormally low prices. It will be sufficiently large to keep out ordinary competitive articles, but not to keep out articles at abnormally low prices from Japan. If it is sufficiently large to keep those out, it must mean that it is going to be of a prohibitive type, and a prohibitive type duty on a raw material is not something which even the hon. Gentleman, I imagine, would very strongly approve.
As regards the paper and boards, I should like to know, for the information
of the House and the country, whether the last sentence in the report,
not including paper or boards which form part of another article,
means not including packing material, paper and boards which come in as packing material, or whether it means paper and boards which form part of another article in the sense of a manufactured part of another article. It would obviously be very inconvenient if paper and boards which formed part of another article, that is to say, which were used to wrap up some other goods, should be subject to taxation under this provision, and I assume that those words are inserted in order to cover that case. I should like to know whether that is the exact position.

7.59 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I can only reply by leave of the House. With regard to the two matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman has put to me, I cannot agree that the zip fastener is anything in the nature of a raw material at all. It is a very highly skilled manufactured article which has caught on with amazing rapidity, and its consumption has gone up tremendously. The zip fastener has been subject to a duty of 20 per cent. for a considerable length of time. These fasteners now have come into very large-scale use for clothing, boots, bags, and an extensive range of other articles, and the industry has been built up and has a capacity of more than twice the existing home consumption. You are dealing with a first-class British industry highly efficient and built up expressly for the manufacture of this particular type of goods. We find competition has been experienced at home and abroad, not only from continental rivals but at abnormally low rates from Japan. The Committee, with all their evidence before them, have advised a scale of specific duties which, contrary to what the hon. and learned Member says, will be adequate in their judgment to deal with these Japanese and other imports, and the House will notice the great variation in the conditions and rates of specific duty according to the length and type of the zip fastener in question. I do not propose to elaborate the matter but to state the fact. With regard to paper, I do not think the words "not including paper or board
which forms part of any article" have any reference to packing. The containers in which goods come in are normally dealt with by the Customs in a regular practice that is quite well known, and it would not be necessary to put in an Import Duty Order words to exclude packing. This proposal merely increases by 5 per cent. an Import Duty which has been imposed for a long time.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I rise only for a moment to comment on an observation of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me quite fantastic to say that a zip fastener is not a raw material. No one is interested in zip fasteners per se or buys them for their own sake. It is perfectly obvious that they are purchased only in order to fasten something, and I should have thought that was obvious even to the Parliamentary Secretary. I should have liked to hear the kind of comment he would have made on an observation of that kind three years ago, and the fact that he now holds up this obvious raw material as a finished article is another piece of evidence of how far he has travelled since the time, three years ago, when he went through the country advocating with so much eloquence the theory and practice of Free Trade.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 11) Order, 1934, dated the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 12) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 13) Order, 1934, dated the second day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said second day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 14) Order, 1934, dated the fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Substitution) (No. 1) Order, 1934, dated the fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Womersley.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eight o'Clock.